​18. Property

​B.  Caveats

i.  Legislation

As of the last update, we are not aware of any COVID-19 related legislation in this area.

ii.  Case law

The impact of COVID-19 on the property market may be relevant to an application for removal of a caveat: see, for example, the submission in Harvey v Emery [2020] VSC 153 that maintaining a caveat would prevent sale of the relevant property at an undervalue ([50]) (the Court’s decision ultimately did not turn on considerations of COVID-19); and, conversely, Wegner v Mayberry [2020] VSC 239, in which removal of a caveat was ordered, in part on the basis that, against the background of the COVID-19 crisis, the relevant properties may otherwise not have achieved a sale later and/or for the same price ([22]-[23]).  Conversely (although not in the context of caveats), in The Estate of Wendy Gwynne Price [2020] NSWSC 782, the NSW Supreme Court rejected a submission to the effect that an executor of an estate should be restrained from selling certain real property in the estate until after the impacts of the pandemic on the property market had eased: [61], [73].  Noting that the health and economic effects of the pandemic may last for years, the Court held that the executors had a duty to administer the estate in the then prevailing market conditions and could take advice from a competent real estate agent as to how to market the property in the circumstances: [73].