New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Grima v Grima [2005] NSWSC 180 HEARING DATE(S) : 8 & 10 February 2005 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 February 2005 JURISDICTION : Equity JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J DECISION : Extension of operation of caveat refused. CATCHWORDS : CONVEYANCING [185] - Land titles under the Torrens system - Caveats against dealings - Form of caveat - Statement of estate or interest - Statement reveals caveator relies on interest which is not caveatable. Anne Theresa Frances Grima (P) PARTIES : Charles Paul Grima (D1) Mary Theresa Grima (D2) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1392/05 Self represented (P) COUNSEL : N Newton (Ds) Self represented (P) SOLICITORS : Conditsis & Associates (Ds) LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION HAMILTON J THURSDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2005 1392/05 ANNE T F GRIMA v CHARLES PAUL GRIMA & ANOR JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff for extension of a caveat. It arises from an unfortunate situation where the plaintiff is a daughter and the defendants are her father and her mother. There is a history between them which, according to the affidavit she has filed, has led the plaintiff to believe that she has an entitlement to the subject property ("the property"), or some of it. 2 In caveat 32985S, which she has lodged over the property, she has stated the nature of the estate or interest in land which she claims as being that the property belongs to her, which, whilst it is not stated with legal nicety or technicality, I take to be a claim to a beneficial estate in fee simple. 3 She claims that estate or interest not by virtue of any instrument but, as appears in the caveat, by virtue of certain facts set out in an annexure to the caveat. This states in shorter form the facts about the relationship between her and her parents which are stated in her affidavit as giving her a claim to the property. There is, unfortunately for her, nothing in the statement of facts in either the caveat or the affidavit which establishes a claim by the plaintiff to a beneficial interest in the property. In those circumstances, the caveat is bad on the face of it and cannot be extended. 4 It may be that there are avenues available to Ms Grima, particularly if she can obtain legal assistance to prepare a better drawn caveat, or to make an appropriate claim against the defendants with perhaps a claim for interlocutory relief, but it is not for me on this application to pass on those matters. In these circumstances, there is nothing I can do but order that the summons be dismissed, and I make that order. 5 The defendants' counsel, having specific instructions not to seek costs, the order that I shall make as to costs will be that there be no order as to the costs of these proceedings. My orders are: (1) Summons dismissed. (2) No order as to costs. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.