The plaintiff commenced proceedings to extend the operation of his caveat – caveat recorded on title of Lot in strata development of which the defendant was registered proprietor – parties settled caveat dispute but not the costs of the proceedings – plaintiff’s caveat failed to specify his interest in the Lot and was therefore fundamentally defective – continuation of caveat would also prejudice the defendant’s ability to obtain refinancing and therefore imperil completion of the development – such an outcome would prevent the defendant from conveying the Lot to the plaintiff – continued operation of caveat highly inconvenient in these circumstances – defendant offered to protect the plaintiff’s interest in the Lot in exchange for removal of the caveat – held that it was inevitable the caveat would have been ordered to be withdrawn – order made that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs
