New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Zhang v Wang [2006] NSWSC 1196 HEARING DATE(S) : 27 October 2006 JURISDICTION : Equity Division Duty List JUDGMENT OF : Brereton J EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 10/27/2006 DECISION : Summons for order extending caveat dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS : REAL PROPERTY – Torrens Title – Caveats – unsecured debt is not caveatable interest. PARTIES : Junhe Zhang (plaintiff) Kevin Wang (defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 5470/06 COUNSEL : Mr J Zhang (in person) (plaintiff) Mr P Carver (solicitor) (defendant) SOLICITORS : Star Carver & Sons (defendant) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION DUTY LIST BRERETON J Friday 27 October 2006 5470/06 Junhe Zhang v Kevin Wang JUDGMENT (Ex tempore) 1 HIS HONOUR: By summons filed on 25 October 2006, Junhe Zhang claims an order extending the operation of caveat AC349066, which he lodged in respect of property comprised in folio identifier 4/SP47024, situate at and known as 4/59-61 Fifth Avenue Campsie in the State of New South Wales, of which the registered proprietor is the defendant Kevin Wang. 2 The caveat claims an interest as "debt", pursuant to agreements dated 3 May and 14 November 1996 between the registered proprietor and the caveator. A lapsing notice was apparently served under cover of a letter dated 26 September 2006, but I am informed by the solicitor for the defendant that steps have not yet been taken to have the caveat actually lapse by lodging proof of service, although it seems likely that time for the obtaining of an extension may well have expired. 3 The agreement of 3 May 1996 is a loan agreement for one million yuan RMB, and contains no charging or security clause. Another agreement dated 6 November 2005 refers to loans of 500,000 yuan and one million yuan lent by Han Bau Wen to Mr Wang, and since assigned by her to Mr Zhang. Again, there is no hint of a reference to a mortgage, charge or any other form of security. 4 The evidence does not disclose any semblance of a caveatable interest. As I have endeavoured to explain to Mr Zhang, he may well be entitled to sue for the debt but on the evidence before me, he has no basis for asserting a caveatable interest in Mr Wang's land. 5 I order that the summons be dismissed, with 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.