Hi, I have two questions from my textbook to answer and am having some difficulty with them. Thanks!

1.Why was the plaintiff's claim in the Double Bay Newspapers case classified as a "mere equity"? What were the implications of this classification? What is the distinction between a mere equity and an equitable interest?

2.In determining equitable priorities, how much weight should be accorded to a failure to caveat? Should not persons with a security interest over land be expected to lodge a caveat thereby notifying others of their claimed interest? Should it not be expected that a person who has failed to search the register should fail to do so at her or his own peril, and thereby lose priority? What practical lessons can be learned in this respect from cases such as Double Bay Newspapers?