Weedon Law successfully represented the vendor on a motion brought by the purchaser who sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the vendor's property.
The legal test for obtaining a CPL requires the party seeking it to demonstrate that they have a potentially valid claim to an interest in the property, even if success in the claim is not guaranteed. Additionally, certain equitable considerations are taken into account, including whether the property is unique, the ease of calculating damages, the availability of satisfactory compensation through damages, the presence of a willing purchaser, and the potential harm to both parties if the CPL is granted or denied.
The purchaser contends that language in the agreement of purchase and sale entitles them to the return of deposits if the transaction fails for any reason, whether related to them or the seller. They argue that the property is unique to them for personal use and assert that the seller breached the agreement by not obtaining spousal consent and failing to cooperate in good faith with extension requests.
However, the court found that the purchaser's arguments were not compelling. The court notes that there is no evidence that spousal consent was required for the transaction, and the seller granted multiple extensions beyond what was required. Additionally, the clause in the agreement regarding deposit refunds is not well-drafted, and the purchaser has not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the property is unique to them.
The court dismissed the purchaser's motion for a CPL, holding that the purchaser failed to complete the agreement and had no interest in the land; in short, the purchaser failed to meet the CPL threshold requirements. Costs were awarded in favour of the vendor.