Caveats are used to protect interests in land. A caveat acts as a "freeze" on the property in question and prevents anyone else registering a dealing with that property that may be contrary to the interest of the person who lodged the caveat. Therefore, a caveat gives notice to the world of an interest in land.
Parties must have a caveatable interest to be able to lodge a caveat. This refers to a legally-recognised interest in the relevant property. Some examples include being the holder of an easement or mortgage or other debt in relation to the property, or someone with a life estate over a particular piece of land.
Common scenario 1: A purchaser's caveat
Signing a contract to purchase land does not automatically render you the legal owner. A purchaser should lodge a caveat to give notice to the world that they now have an interest in that property. It also protects the purchaser should a dishonest vendor try and sell the property again to someone else.
Common scenario 2: Caveat pursuant to a charging clause
Often, the terms and conditions of a contract between a supplier and customer will have a “charging clause”. Under this type of clause the customer “charges” (i.e. pledges) any property owned by the customer as security for the debt owed to the supplier. Sometimes the clause goes further and purports to allow the supplier to take out a mortgage over any property owned by the customer.
These clauses can be very onerous and often take customers by surprise, so we recommend customers being asked to sign commercial terms and conditions type documents be on the look-out for such clauses and strike them out if possible.
Lodging a caveat without a caveatable interest
Not just anyone can lodge a caveat. There are very serious consequences for lodging a caveat without a caveatable interest.
The caveat will be removed from the Register and parties can be subject to orders for the payment of costs in relation to the caveat.
Some other resources you
might find helpful
Borton v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 351
In Borton v State of New South [2026] NSWSC 351 Mr Borton (the plaintiff) successfully sued the State of New South Wales for malicious prosecution.
Residual Liberty and Segregation Breaches: DE v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 157
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in DE v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 157 discussed the interpretation of the Detention Centres Act 1987 (NSW) (the Act) and the concept of ‘residual liberty’.
Case Review: Accused of Fraud During Cross-Border Currency Exchange?
Mr Zhang had operated a successful business in China for many years. As he and his wife planned for retirement, they intended to relocate to Australia to reunite with their son who was already settled here.