Blog 74. Leave to appeal against Blog 65 refused

Dolan v Dolan [2023] VSCA 136, Court of Appeal.

In this case the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from the decision of Ierodiaconou AsJ ([2022] VSC 543) the subject of Blog 65.   The Court of Appeal decision is particularly helpful because the court summarises a number of basic caveat litigation points arising under the TLA s. 90(3), namely:

  1. An application under s. 90(3) is interlocutory in nature, requiring application of the two-stage test of serious question to be tried and balance of convenience, not ordinarily requiring final determination of disputed factual issues or claims, and not giving rise to an issue estoppel or res judicata (although an application under s. 90(3) may amount to an abuse of process).
  2. Where an arguable case is established the caveator is generally required to commence a proceeding with a Writ and pleadings.
  3. As to admissibility of evidence.
  4. That an order removing a caveat to permit sale, with part of the sale proceeds being held on trust pending final determination of the dispute, may be appropriate where the caveator was not in possession or where the claimed interest conferred no possessory right, but may be inappropriate where the claimed interest, of which there was a serious question to be tried, conferred possessory rights or represented the whole or a substantial proportion of the beneficial proprietary interest.

It is helpful first to set out the original decision, commencing with the facts particularly relevant to the appeal –

  • In about 1998 the first defendant (Christine) and other persons purchased land at Lorne (the parent title) for $105,000 with Christine being registered as to a half interest.   They agreed to subdivide it into two blocks, with her taking one.  She deposed that she contributed $52,500 towards the purchase.  The plaintiff (Shannan), who was Christine’s daughter, deposed that she (Shannan) contributed $20,000 towards the purchase.
  • Due to her age and income Christine could not obtain a loan to fund construction of a house.   However, a Bendigo Bank employee advised that if she transferred her interest in the parent title to Shannan an acceptable loan could be secured in Shannan’s name.  Christine deposed that Shannan accepted her proposal to make this transfer so that Shannan could obtain a loan on Christine’s behalf, but that both before and after subdivision she (Christine) would continue as beneficial owner, and that Shannan also accepted other proposed terms relating to the transfer.  Shannan denied accepting this proposal.
  • In 2001 Christine transferred her moiety in the parent title to Shannan, the consideration stated in the Transfer being as “An Agreement to Transfer”.   Following subdivision, one block (the property) was transferred to Shannan, the consideration in that Transfer being stated as “In pursuance of an Agreement between the Transferors for partition of the said land …”, and Shannan in 2003 became registered proprietor of this block.  The bank established a loan account in Shannan’s name with an overdraft limit of $140,000 secured by a mortgage.
  • Christine deposed that the costs for acquisition of the parent title and construction and fit‑out of the house were funded primarily from her personal resources and from the loan account, Shannan only contributing about 7% of overall build costs.   Christine also deposed to making mortgage repayments and that she paid all outgoings including council rates, home insurance, and for maintenance and improvement.  Shannan deposed that the overall build costs were largely drawn down from the loan account, that from 2004 to 2006 she made loan payments, and that Christine did not use her personal resources to fund overall build costs.
  • Upon completion of the house in 2003/2004 Christine, Shannan, and another family member took up residence.  Shannan left in 2006.  In 2021 Christine caveated on the ground of ‘implied, resulting or constructive trust’.  Shannan applied under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) for removal of the caveat.

Ierodiaconou AsJ dismissed the application, holding –

  1. There was a serious question to be tried that Christine was the beneficiary of a common intention constructive trust (she alleged as to 93% of the equitable title). This was supported by: her deposing to the required common intention or agreement; reference to an agreement in the Transfer (her Honour appears to state in the Transfer to Shannan of the subdivided block, but quaere this is a slip for the Transfer to Shannan from Christine); and Christine’s contribution to loan repayments.  Moreover, it appeared to be common ground that Christine contributed most of the purchase price of the parent title and that for many years she made payments into the mortgage loan account and resided on the property.
  2. There was a serious question to be tried that Christine was the beneficiary of a resulting trust (she alleged as to 65% of the equitable title) arising from her contributions to the purchase price of the parent title and to construction and fit-out.
  3. The balance of convenience favoured maintenance of the caveat because of: Christine’s long residence; her age being elderly; evidence of her investing her life savings into the property; the fact that Shannan proposed to sell the property with vacant possession with only $20,000 from the net proceeds being distributed to Christine pending resolution of the dispute; Christine’s claim of a substantial interest in the property; and Christine’s inability to buy another property or rent one in Lorne.  Any hardship for Shannan could be met by Christine’s undertaking to maintain mortgage and property expense payments, which would maintain the status quo of many years, and Christine being required within 7 days to commence a proceeding to establish her interest in the property.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, holding –

  1. The decision at first instance was discretionary and to impugn it the applicant must establish an error of a kind explained in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499. [83]
  2. The proposed ground of appeal that the Associate Judge had conducted a “trial” of the Originating Motion (without the applicant being aware of it) and had not just heard the Summons, whereby the final orders created an issue estoppel or res judicata that Christine had a caveatable interest, was misguided and a distraction. The true issue was that the nature of the order made, ie to refuse to order removal of the caveat, reflected in the conclusion in the order dismissing the summons, was interlocutory in nature, in the sense that it did not finally determine any rights in the property.  It was interlocutory because the relief sought was under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) requiring the caveator to establish a serious question to be tried of an estate or interest in the land and that the balance of convenience favoured the maintenance of the caveat until trial.   An application for removal of a caveat did not ordinarily present an occasion for the final determination of disputed factual issues or claims.  Not only was it usual for an application under s. 90(3) to be by Summons or Originating Motion, and for it to be determined by the two-stage test, but where an arguable case was established the caveator was generally required to commence a proceeding to have the claim to an interest in the land determined in a properly constituted suit with a Writ and pleadings.  An Originating Motion was ill-suited to such a dispute and there may be no utility in keeping it on foot. [47]-[55]
  3. The Associate Judge had applied these principles. She had not determined whether the applicant had any equitable interest in the property, but done no more than dismiss the Summons.  No issue estoppel or res judicata [56], [57], [60], [61]
  4. However, in the absence of a relevant change in circumstances, an application to remove the caveat may be an abuse of process. [62]
  5. The submission that the Associate Judge was not entitled to rely on matters stated in a draft Statement of Claim exhibited to and repeated in a paragraph of an affidavit, and in particular the pleading of an agreement between Christine and Shannan, was rejected. The fact that a paragraph in an affidavit was in the same form as a pleading was inconsequential.  Admissibility of the paragraph was determined by reference to the Evidence Act 2008.  Although the form of the paragraph was open to the criticism that it was conclusionary it was admissible because the evidence was relevant and on its face came from the deponent’s personal knowledge.  The evidence was capable of reasonably bearing upon whether there was a triable issue of an agreement or understanding reflecting a common intention as to the beneficial ownership of the property.  The other evidence of an agreement included the change in title, the payment by Christine of part of the purchase price of the parent title and construction costs, and the fact that she continued to occupy the property without paying rent.  In any event, counsel had conceded before the Associate Judge that he was ‘not going to argue that there isn’t a prima facie case here in relation to the caveat’. [65], [71]-[75]
  6. The proposed ground of appeal that the Associate Justice should have determined that at best Christine was entitled to a lesser equitable remedy, ie an order requiring Shannan to hold some of the sale proceeds on trust pending final determination of the dispute, was not established. The Associate Justice was correct in concluding that Christine had raised a serious question to be tried that she held a beneficial interest in the property.  As to the balance of convenience, the caveat itself did not confer any rights on Christine to occupy the property for the purpose of the caveat nor (although likely to affect the ability to sell and price) prevent sale. [42], [84]-[89]
  7. In considering whether the balance of convenience favoured the retention of the caveat, it was necessary to consider the nature of the claimed interest and what the caveat was designed to protect. In cases where the caveator was not in possession or where the claimed interest conferred no possessory right, the claimed proprietary interest may be adequately protected by removing the caveat, allowing the property to be sold and, by orders or undertakings, for the proceeds or part of them to be secured until the respective interests in the property can be determined.  Conversely, where the claimed interest conferred possessory rights or represents the whole or a substantial proportion of the beneficial proprietary interest, it may be appropriate to maintain the caveat and so not alter the registered title pending trial.   In this context two points required examination –
    1. Did the interest claimed by Christine give her a possessory right to the property? On her primary case, she claimed to own 93% of the beneficial interest based on a common intention constructive trust. She had also been in possession since the construction of the house.  In those circumstances it was arguable that the equitable interest would follow the legal interest and give her a right to possession. Alternatively, establishment of her right to equitable relief may arguably also found an order restraining Shannan from evicting her.
    2. In her draft pleading and in her submissions at first instance Christine accepted that the property should be sold but only after determination of the respective equitable interests. Shannan’s submission that, in circumstances where both parties sought sale and distribution of proceeds, it was (necessarily) wrong for the caveat to remain was invalid.  It was open to the Associate Judge to conclude that the caveat should not be removed before the determination of equitable interests because the practical effect this would be a sale and transfer of title with the real risk of an order for possession against Christine.  Christine’s ability to secure alternative accommodation was heavily dependent on her knowing the extent of, and being able to realise, any interest she may have in the property, accordingly the status quo plainly favoured retention of the caveat.  And if Christine was successful on her primary claim and Shannan has no more than a 7% beneficial interest Shannan’s interest may possibly be satisfied without sale.  [90]-[93], [96]-[99]
  1. The Associate Judge was alive to possible prejudice to Shannan from maintenance of the caveat including exposure to mortgage repayments. She correctly decided that the undertakings proffered by Christine to pay certain amounts were adequate to meet any prejudice.  An application to lead fresh evidence to the effect that the mortgage had been in arrears was refused. [100], [102], [103]

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Tuesday, July 25, 2023


19. Foreign money invested in property – whether trust created or mere loan – caveat removed but sale monies paid into trust.

Oz Envision Development Pty Ltd & Anor v Yuan (11 October 2018) [2018] VSC 607 McDonald J.   

The facts were –

  • In or about 2012 the defendant transferred$5.01 m. to enable the first plaintiff to acquire two properties. 
  • One property was subdivided into three units. 
  • In 2016 a deed of arrangement was entered into between the first plaintiff and the defendant whereby funds from the sale of this land were to be paid to the second plaintiff to enable it to undertake property development.
  • Contracts of sale of the three units for a total of $2,665,000 were entered into. 
  • The defendant caveated over both properties claiming that the advance of monies gave rise to a caveatable interest pursuant to an implied or resulting trust.

The plaintiffs alleged that the funds were merely a loan and so gave rise to no caveatable interest. 

The defendant, who was a Chinese National, deposed that:

  • the purpose of the payment was to invest $5 m. in Australia, this being required for the purpose of seeking  Australian residency;
  • the director of the first plaintiff was so appointed because he held the required residency status for directorship of a company in Australia which the defendant did not;
  • there was no discussion as to a loan including as to interest and that his intention was “that the money I paid to the First Plaintiff meant that the properties purchased by the First Plaintiff were my properties”. 

McDonald J held –

  1. There was a serious question to be tried that a caveatable interest existed based on a resulting trust.  There was no written loan agreement or evidence of a verbal loan agreement, and this absence was consistent with the terms of the deed.  Financial evidence of a loan, produced by the plaintiffs, in particular unaudited balance sheets of some weight, was nonetheless inconclusive. [8], [10]-[11], [13], [17]
  2. However, the balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveats because they were having a significant adverse effect upon the first plaintiff’s business, were preventing completion of the contracts, and were affecting the rights of the innocent purchasers. [17]-[19]
  3. Nonetheless, the proceeds of sale would not be distributed in accordance with the deed but would be paid into trust or an interest bearing account (in the solicitors’ names) pending trial.  The argument that this was contrary to the implementation of the deed was overcome by the first defendant’s allegations that he, being illiterate in English, had been induced to execute the deed by fraudulent misrepresentation by the director of the first plaintiff about its terms. [20]-[21], [23], [25]


  1. From a non-legal aspect this case is a manifestation of the common phenomenon of foreign money being advanced to buy Australian property on terms not clearly documented.
  2. His Honour did not spell out the law of resulting trusts, but where property is put into the name of a non-contributor, or one of a number of contributors,to the purchase price, it is generally presumed to be held by the registered proprietor on trust for the contributors in proportion to their contributions, eg:Piroshenko v Grojsman [2010] VSC 240 (in which the claim failed on the facts).
  3. However, money lent for the purpose of being applied towards the purchase price of land does not, on being so applied, entitle the lender to an estate or interest in the land, unless the parties intended that the lender should have security for the loan: Simons v David Benge Motors Pty Ltd [1974] VR 585.