This is an AI-generated summary of a selected monitored public legal source and may omit context. It is general information only, not legal advice, and is not a substitute for reading the source or consulting an attorney.
AI summary
The High Court dealt with an opposed application about a caveat noted against the Lustre House sectional title scheme in Johannesburg. It found that the caveat was noted without consent or a court order, relied on an inapplicable conference resolution, and was unlawful. The Court also declared that the original title deed did not need to be endorsed with the scheme endorsement and ordered removal of the caveat.
This may be relevant to property, conveyancing, and deeds registry matters involving sectional title schemes and caveats.
Evidence from source
The noting of the caveat without consent and without judicial oversight is, for this reason alone, irregular and unlawful.
Supports: The Court found the caveat was unlawful because it was noted without consent or a court order.
The Respondent is directed to remove Caveat I-1365/2019 currently noted in the Deeds Office Johannesburg against the Sectional Title Scheme known as Lustre House.
Supports: The order directed removal of the caveat.