Category: Estoppel – Anshun

Blog 85. The Giurina litigation.

The cases in this Blog partially concern caveats and illustrate a persistent use of the legal system leading to loss of a property.  They are in chronological order: Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council & Anor [2023] VSCA 148; Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council & Anor [2023] VSCA 299; Giurina v Registrar of Titles [2023] VSC 784; Giurina v Sheriff (Vic) [2024] VSCA 112.  (There are many earlier Giurina cases but this Blog commences with the Court of Appeal caveat case).   The caveat points arising in these cases are:

Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council & Anor [2023] VSCA 148 – unlike the Transfer of Land Act s. 89A(1), which enables “any person interested in the land” to apply to the Registrar of Titles for service of a notice, an applicant for relief under s. 90(3) is not require to have an interest in the land.

Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council & Anor [2023] VSCA 299 – confirming the statement of law in the previous Court of Appeal case and also rejecting the proposition that where there is a warrant of seizure and sale (while saying nothing about the standing of the Sheriff to apply to remove a caveat from the title of a property subject to the warrant) only the Sheriff had standing to apply to remove the caveats by virtue of the warrants.

Giurina v Registrar of Titles [2023] VSC 784 – a proposed caveat by an executor, in his personal capacity, claiming that he held the land on trust for himself is untenable.

Giurina v Sheriff (Vic) [2024] VSCA 112 – where a court has made an order requiring leave for lodging further caveats, the court has a broad general discretion, to be exercised by reference to whatever considerations are relevant in the particular case, in determining whether to grant leave.

By way of background –

  • Carolina Nacinovich died in 2002.  At the time of her death she was the registered proprietor of a property in Geelong West.  She was still so registered.
  • Ermanno Giurina obtained probate of the will of the deceased.  By operation of s. 13 of the Administration and Probate Act the property vested in Giurina as executor at that time.  The deceased bequeathed the property to him ‘for his own use and benefit absolutely’.   Clause 5 of the will provided:

I give devise and bequeath the rest of my estate to my trustee upon trust to sell call in and convert into money … and after the payment of my just debts funeral and testamentary expenses and death estate and succession duties State Federal or otherwise to hold the residue upon trust for the following in equal shares …

and thereafter were named two other people.

  • In October 2003 Giurina made a handwritten note which he signed twice (once as executor and once as beneficiary), reading –

‘Note 11-10-2003

I assent as Executor to dispose of property at Geelong West … to myself as beneficiary as per [3] of Will of C. Nacinovich —  no liabilities that I am aware of – no power of sale anyway —  dispose of specific devise of Property only — chase up other matters re funds —  Ermanno Giurina —  Executor.

I accept assent — agree as beneficiary to pay for outgoings, costs, etc myself privately for Property — not claim anything against Nacinovich Estate — Ermanno Giurina

Beneficiary’

  • In 2019 Greater Geelong City Council made an emergency order under s. 102 of the Building Act 1993 concerning the house on the property.  Giurina, as executor, engaged in unsuccessful litigation against the Council concerning the order, resulting in orders for costs being made against him in his executorial capacity.
  • In March 2022, at the request of the Council, warrants of seizure and sale were issued against the property.  The warrants inter alia authorised execution to be levied by the Sheriff for the purpose of satisfying the costs orders.  In his capacity as executor Giurina unsuccessfully sought to set aside the warrants.
  • In July 2022 Giurina lodged a caveat, naming himself as caveator.  The estate or interest claimed was ‘freehold estate’, the grounds of claim were ‘estoppel’ and the prohibition was listed as ‘absolutely’.
  • In August 2022 Giurina lodged a second caveat, naming himself as caveator.  The estate or interest claimed was ‘freehold estate’, the prohibition was listed as ‘absolutely’, and the grounds of claim were stated as: “Beneficiary/ies under the will of … [Nacinovich] … where probate has been granted and all debts in the estate have been paid”.
  • The Council applied under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) for removal of the caveats.  Section s. 90(3) materially provided that “any person who was adversely affected” by a caveat could bring proceedings for its removal.   Giurina argued that the Council did not have standing to make the application because, as a mere unsecured judgment creditor, it did not have an interest in the land.  Matthews AsJ rejected this argument and on 9 March 2023 directed the removal of the caveats and restrained Giurina from lodging any further caveat without leave ([2023] VSC 59).   Matthews AsJ also refused an application to stay these orders.
  • On 31 March 2023 Giurina filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the single proposed ground of appeal that Matthews AsJ erred in law in concluding that the Council had standing to bring the caveat removal application pursuant to s. 90(3).
  • On 14 April 2023, Giurina applied to the Court of Appeal to stay the orders of Matthews AsJ.  In Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council & Another [2023] VSCA 148 Osborn and Kaye JJA refused to grant the stay sought on the ground that the proposed ground of appeal was not reasonably arguable, noting that, unlike the administrative procedure in s. 89A(1) which enabled “any person interested in the land” to apply to the Registrar of Titles for service of a notice requiring the caveator in substance to give notice of proceedings to substantiate the caveator’s claim, an applicant for relief under s. 90(3) was not require to have an interest in the land ([15(b)]).   The construction of s. 90(3) contended for by the applicant would result in an absurd outcome, namely that a judgment creditor could never obtain a removal of caveat under s. 90(3) in aid of the sale of real property pursuant to a warrant of seizure and sale ([15(e)]).

On 17 August 2023, Giurina filed an application in the Court of Appeal to amend his proposed grounds of appeal. By that application, he sought to add the following proposed grounds of appeal:

    1. Her Honour erred at law and on the evidence before her by concluding that [Mr Giurina] did not have a prima facie case [in relation] to the interest claimed in the first caveat and even if she was wrong about that the prima facie case was very weak and consequently the balance of convenience favoured [the Council].
    2. Her Honour erred at law and on the evidence before her by concluding that [Mr Giurina] did not have a prima facie case [in relation] to the interest claimed in the second caveat and even if she was wrong about that the prima facie case was very weak and consequently, the balance of convenience favoured [the Council].
    3. Her Honour erred at law in concluding that both caveats should be removed instead of maintaining them until the trial where any dispute of the factual issues or the claims which the caveats seek to protect can be determined.

In Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council & Anor [2023] VSCA 299 Beach and McLeish JJA heard the applications for leave to amend the grounds of appeal and for leave to appeal and (if leave was granted) the appeal.   Their Honours refused leave to amend the grounds and refused leave to appeal, holding –

  1. For the reasons given in Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council & Another [2023] VSCA 148, which their Honours adopted as their own, proposed ground 1 was not reasonably arguable. Their Honours further rejected the new submission that (while saying nothing about the standing of the Sheriff to apply to remove a caveat from the title of a property subject to a warrant of seizure and sale) only the Sheriff had standing to apply to remove the caveats by virtue of the warrants. [24]-[25]
  2. Proposed ground 2 was based on an alleged representation Giurina made to himself in 2003 and his conduct following the death of Ms Nacinovich, whereby he alleged that the property belonged to him personally by reason of a proprietary estoppel.  It was totally devoid of merit.  The balance of convenience was also against maintenance of the first caveat. [37], [38], [57]
  3. Proposed ground 3 was without merit. Although the bequest to Giurina was a specific bequest of the property to him for his use and benefit absolutely, the use of the word ‘absolutely’ did not mean that the property vested in him at the time of death of the deceased. Giurina had not made out a prima facie case that the property was no longer an asset in the estate. [47]-[49], [57]
  4. Proposed ground 4 was without merit. Giurina had taken no steps to commence the proceeding or articulate a claim for the trial he sought. If, as alleged owner of the property, he applied in his personal capacity to have the warrants set aside, it would be difficult to see how that could not be an abuse of process of the kind referred to in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589. [51], [55], [57]
  5. Another reason for refusing leave to amend was because Giurina had stated that the reason for the application for leave to amend was because, after a previous hearing, it had become obvious to him that ‘to have any chance of succeeding’, he ‘had to add additional grounds’. [58]

Giurina v Registrar of Titles [2023] VSC 784, Barrett AsJ.  This was an application by Giurina for leave to lodge a caveat over the property (Matthews AsJ having restrained lodgment of further caveats without leave).  Giurina argued that –

  • he (as executor) was trustee for himself (as beneficiary) pursuant to a constructive, resulting or implied trust arising as a result of his personal expenditure (as opposed to his expenditure as trustee) in relation to the property.  He had deposed that since 11 October 2003, he believed that he had not performed any executorial acts and he had since been, personally and not on behalf of the estate, making payments for the property’s outgoings in his capacity as a specific beneficiary.  These outgoings covered: rates, valuation and charges; insurance; gardening; fencing; and maintenance.   The total was approximately $120,000 excluding maintenance.
  • the property was given to him absolutely by the terms of the will and was unavailable to satisfy any debts arising out of his administration of the estate.
  • as executor he had on 11 October 2003 assented to the transfer of the property to himself, and so the estate had been fully administered.

Barrett AsJ refused the application, holding –

  1. It was a fundamental principle of common law and equity that a person who held the entire legal and beneficial interest in a property cannot hold the property on trust for themselves.  If one person had both the legal estate and the entire beneficial interest in the land he held an entire and unqualified legal interest and not two separate interests, one legal and the other equitable.  If that person first held the legal estate upon trust for some other person and thereafter that other person transferred to the first person the entire equitable interest, then again the first person did not hold two separate interests but a single entire interest – he was the absolute owner of an estate in fee simple in the land.  The equitable interest merged into the legal estate to comprise a single absolute interest in the land.  However, although the trustee could not be the sole beneficiary, the trustee could be one of the beneficiaries. [23]-[24]
  2. Further, it was impossible for a constructive trust to be imposed to avoid any unconscientious or unconscionable conduct between Giurina and himself. [25]
  3. The argument that Giurina assented (pursuant to s. 41(1) of the Administration and Probate Act) to the transfer to himself of the beneficial interest in the property was also invalid: the only interest in real property that may be conveyed by assent was the interest held by the testator.  The process of assent did not enable a personal representative to separate the legal estate and equitable interest in real property. [27]
  4. It was accordingly not arguable that Giurina had the caveatable interest asserted. [28]
  5. Further, Giurina was personally liable for debts incurred by himself as executor.  Although he had a right to an indemnity out of the assets of the estate, an executor’s liability was not necessarily limited to the assets of the estate, eg the indemnity did not extend to costs of actions improperly commenced or defended.  Accordingly, his submissions as to the different capacities in which he held the property were both of limited weight and irrelevant to the question of leave. [32]-[33]
  6. Finally, even if the question of the availability of the property to satisfy costs orders was relevant to the question of leave it was not open to the court to upset the orders of Matthews AsJ that the Property was affected by the costs orders and the warrant.  [34]

Giurina v Sheriff (Vic) [2024] VSCA 112 (Walker and Orr JJA).   This was the hearing of two applications.  In the first application the respondent was the Sheriff.  In the second application the respondent was the Registrar of Titles.  The first application arose from an application by Giurina for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Sheriff’s sale.  The second application arose from an application by Giurina for leave to lodge two caveats on the property.  The applications were heard at first instance in the Practice Court on 23 February 2024.  On 26 February, the day before the sale was due to occur, Forbes J. refused each application on a number of grounds.  Her Honour held that the test for granting leave an application for leave to lodge a caveat was like an application to remove a caveat under s. 90(3), and accordingly the test in relation to the caveatable interest was analogous to the interlocutory injunction test.  Her Honour further noted: there was no evidence of a declaration of trust by Giurina in favour of himself – this argument appeared to stem only from the words of the will, which empowered Giurina to act as trustee as well as executor, but which did not, of itself, create a trust relationship in respect of any particular property of the estate; even if a trust in favour of oneself could be made there was not a serious question to be tried that the applicant had a caveatable interest.   Giurina sought leave to appeal from her Honour’s decision.  In the caveat proceeding he also sought an extension of time in which to file his notice of application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal in the injunction proceeding and refused the application for an extension of time in the caveat proceeding, holding –

  1. The underlying basis for Giurina’s claims — that the estate has been fully administered, at least in relation to the property — was without merit.  In particular: the estate was the legal owner of the property, the property having vested in Giurina as executor upon the grant of probate but formal transfer of the registered title to the property to him not having occurred; the estate could not be regarded as having been fully administered until its assets had been distributed in accordance with the will; this was also why Giurina’s contention that he was a trustee of the property, holding it on trust for himself as beneficiary, lacked any prospect of success. [49], [50], [52], [84]
  2. The balance of convenience also weighed against the grant of an interlocutory injunction. [66]
  3. In determining whether to grant leave to lodge a further caveat the court had a broad general discretion to be exercised by reference to whatever considerations were relevant in the particular case.  In exercising that discretion it was permissible to adopt the approach taken by Forbes J., namely to assess whether the applicant for leave could demonstrate an arguable caveatable interest which, on the balance of convenience, should remain pending trial.  Even if the court was to conclude that Forbes J. made a specific error in the course of her reasoning it would make the same order, because the basis for Giurina’s asserted interest that he sought to protect by the caveats was the interest he invalidly claimed had resulted from the alleged completion of the administration of the estate. [83], [84], [86], [93], [94]
  4. Accordingly it would be futile to extend the time for filing of the notice of application for leave to appeal in the caveat proceeding. [96]

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Blog 84. A freehold estate?

The Victorian government publication “Guide to grounds of claim for caveats” lists “Freehold Estate” in certain circumstances under “Estate or interest claimed”.  In Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Anor [2019] VSC 832 (Blog 34) Garde J. stated at footnote [15] –

“At common law, there are three kinds of freehold estates – a fee simple, a fee tail and a life estate.  The most common freehold estate encountered in Victoria is the fee simple estate.”  Because it has been impossible to create a fee tail in Victoria for a long time (see Property Law Act  1958 Part VI) the field is reduced to fee simple and life estate.  In Marchmont v Keeshan [2023] VCC 2138 Judge Marks considered: caveats claiming a freehold estate; issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel or abuse of process arising from a previous caveat removal proceeding; and whether a stay should be granted pending an appeal from orders removing caveats, in the course of which her Honour considered the nature of a caveat.

The facts were –

  • In March 2017 the plaintiffs lent the defendant $50,000 pursuant to a written agreement.  On about 20 September 2017 the plaintiffs and the defendant entered a second agreement relating to the original $50,000 loan and to a further loan of $185,000.  Clause 8.1(b) of the Second Agreement in substance provided that if there was a default by the Borrower the Lender (i) ‘may call on the Borrower to provide a mortgage over real property determined by the Lender on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Lender, at any time prior to the Repayment Date’ and (ii) ‘At any time prior to the Repayment Date the Lender may, pursuant to this clause, lodge a caveat over any such real property it may determine as appropriate to provide security pursuant to sub-clause (a) hereof.
  • The defendant repaid part of the debt, the extent of repayment being disputed.
  • On 6 July 2020, the plaintiffs lodged caveats over properties owned by the defendant stating the ‘Estate or interest claimed’ as ‘Freehold Estate’ and the ‘Grounds of claim’ as ‘Agreement with [the Registered Proprietor(s)] dated 20/09/17’.
  • February 2023 the defendant, in the context of seeking a particular refinancing facility, applied to the Supreme Court to remove the caveats, resulting in a consent order dismissing the proceeding with no order as to costs.  Under “Other Matters” McDonald J. noted –

“The parties have agreed to resolve the matter with the First and Second Defendant consenting to a registration of first ranking mortgages over the properties the subject of the proceeding.  The First and Second defendants undertake to provide all relevant consents in writing for the registration of first ranking mortgages in relation to the facility referred to at paragraph 17 of the affidavit of Clinton Keeshan …”.

  • That refinancing did not proceed and the defendant now applied to the County Court under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) for removal of the caveats.

Judge Marks removed the caveats, holding –

  1. The reference to ‘sub-clause (a)’ at the end of sub-clause (b)(ii) was to be construed as a reference to sub-clause (b)(i). [27]
  2. There was no serious question to be tried that the plaintiffs had the estate or interest claimed, because –
    1. Each caveat “overclaimed”, in that cl. 8.1 gave no sort of freehold estate interest but at most a charge or something akin to a chargeable interest.   This case was distinguishable from 187 Settlement Road v Kennards Storage Management [2022] VSC 771 (Blog 69) where a ‘freehold estate’ was claimed in circumstances involving a right which might later turn into holding the freehold estate, in that that caveator had a conditional right to purchase that land.  The highest interest ever available to the plaintiffs under cl. 8.1(b) was the right to call on the defendant to provide a mortgage. [21], [24], [25], [28], [31]
    2. Clause 8.1(b) did not entitle the plaintiffs to restrain any dealing with the freehold estate.  An unregistered charge, unregistered mortgage, or even a registered mortgage, did not prevent the registered proprietor of the land from granting further charges or mortgages.  The principal vice in a caveat which overclaimed in the manner of these caveats was that they could achieve that unjustified effect.  This was a key reason underpinning the requirement for a caveator to establish a serious question to be tried of the estate or interest claimed and not some other interest.  This case was analogous to those in which a creditor claimed ‘an estate in fee simple’. [29], [30]
  3. Further, on the proper construction of the second agreement, a ‘call’ under cl. 8.1(b)(i) was likely necessary before a caveatable interest arose (and there had not been one). [35]
  4. The balance of convenience also favoured removal of the caveats over some of the properties, because, having regard to amount arguably secured, the plaintiffs would have been protected by maintaining caveats on the other properties.  There was no identifiable prejudice to the caveators from this removal, but the registered proprietor needed to avoid the consequences of the first mortgage being in default. [36], [37], [39]
  5. None of the doctrines of issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel or abuse of process, founded on the existence of the Supreme Court order, barred this application.  In particular –
    1. although an issue estoppel could arise where a final order was made, including by consent, the estoppel could only exist in respect of matters necessarily resolved by the earlier order and where the decision was ‘final and conclusive on the merits’.  Nothing as to the validity of the caveats was necessarily resolved as a step in reaching the ‘determination’ made in the Supreme Court order; [49]-[51]
    2. An Anshun estoppel precluded the assertion of a claim, or the raising of an issue of fact or law, if that claim or issue was so connected with the subject matter of the first proceeding as to have made it unreasonable for the claim not to have been made or the issue not to have been raised in that proceeding.  There was no hearing on the merits in the Supreme Court: it was not arguable that it was unreasonable for claims or arguments as to the validity of the caveats (and the overclaim) to have been made in circumstances where the first proceeding was settled at an early stage without any submissions being made. [52]-[53]
    3. An abuse of process existed where in an earlier proceeding a claim was made or an issue raised and determined, or where it ought reasonably to have been so made or raised for determination. It was not the case that arguments about the validity of the caveats ought reasonably have been made in the Supreme Court proceeding in circumstances where it was settled at an early stage without submissions being made.   The circumstances underlying this application and the earlier one were different – the consent orders in the Supreme Court proceeding were tied to a particular refinancing facility being sought. [55]-[56]
  6. An application for a stay to allow time to appeal was refused.   The consequence of the orders removing the caveats did not have the effect of extinguishing whatever security the plaintiffs were entitled to over the land.  A caveat did no more than provide notice of an asserted security interest.  It did not create, nor did its removal extinguish, rights over the land.  The only effects of removing the caveats would be: to enable the defendant to refinance, involving discharge of old and registration of new mortgages; (at worst for the plaintiffs) if the properties were ultimately sold, potentially prejudice the priority of their asserted equitable rights as chargee against (hypothetical) equitable claimants to the proceeds of sale.  There was no risk of the defendant dissipating the properties. [63], [65]
  7. Section 91(4) of the Transfer of Land Act, which provides that a “caveat that has lapsed or been removed by an order of a court shall not be renewed by or on behalf of the same person in respect of the same interest” did not prevent lodgement of a fresh caveat where a caveat was removed for claiming the wrong interest (as had occurred here). [65]

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

Blog 76. A collection of claims, none amounting to a caveatable interest.

SJM v PMD & Anor [2023] VSC 349, Daly AsJ.

This case concerns a persistent user of the court system with sundry claims, none caveatable.  Interestingly Daly AsJ essays a definition of what is an estate or interest in land (this being the basis of a caveatable interest under the Transfer of Land Act s. 89).  Lawyers find it easier to say whether, in the particular circumstances of a case, an interest in land exists, than to define one.  Relying on Victorian authority her Honour stated –

“An estate or interest in land required to support a caveat must be an interest in respect of which equity would give specific relief against the land itself, either by way of requiring the provision of a registrable instrument or in some other way, for example, ordering a sale to enable a charge to be satisfied out of the proceeds.”

This is a comprehensive definition though not complete, because, for example it does not cover the interest of an adverse possessor, held caveatable in Nicholas Olandezos v Bhatha & Ors [2017] VSC 234 at [35], [37], nor rights of a legal not equitable nature.  In that case Derham AsJ stated at [18] –

“First, the Caveators must establish that there is a prima facie case – there is a probability on the evidence before the Court that the Caveators will be found to have the asserted legal or equitable rights or interest in the disputed land by adverse possession.”

Any general statement of what is an estate or interest in land also depends on context.  So in Stow v Mineral Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (1979) 180 CLR 295, which concerned the requirement that permitted objectors to the grant of a mining licence claim an estate or interest in land, Aickin J. stated at [21] –

“In my opinion the ordinary meaning of the compound expression “estate or interest in land” is an estate or interest of a proprietary nature in the land.  This would include legal and equitable estates and interests, e.g., a freehold or a leasehold estate, or incorporeal interests such as easements, profits a prendre, all such interests being held by persons in their individual capacity.  It does not embrace interests in which the person concerned has no greater claim than any other member of the public.”

  The facts were as follows –

  • The plaintiff and the first defendant (defendant) were in a de facto relationship for about a decade until 2010.  In 2003 the plaintiff purchased a property at Hoddles Creek of which she was sole registered proprietor and where they cohabited until she moved interstate in 2010, returning, she alleged, in 2012 to retake exclusive possession.  In 2012 the defendant caveated claiming an implied, resulting or constructive trust, the grounds of the claim being an alleged constructive trust.
  • On 15 August 2012 the Federal Magistrates’ Court made final consent orders in a proceeding commenced by the defendant including providing three alternatives for disposal of the property.  The first alternative (in paragraph 2 of the orders) was that the defendant pay the plaintiff $110,000 by 15 November 2012 in exchange for a transfer of her interest in the land with him discharging the mortgage and performing certain other obligations.  Failing this alternative being taken, the second alternative gave her an election to retain the property and to pay him $50,000 in exchange for withdrawal of the caveat.  Failing both the foregoing alternatives the property was to be sold and proceeds distributed in a particular manner.  Other orders included (in paragraph 5.2) that the parties would hold their respective interests in the land on trust pursuant to these orders.  The orders concluded that pursuant to s. 81 of the Family Law Act the parties intended them to, as far as practicable, finally determine their financial relationship and avoid further proceedings.
  • Due, the defendant alleged, to the plaintiff’s non-co-operation with his pursuit of the first alternative, he filed an application returnable on 31 October 2012 to enforce the final orders (the enforcement application) chiefly to require the plaintiff to give effect to the first alternative.  The case was not reached, but on that day the plaintiff’s solicitor deposed to holding the required completed Transfer document and that his client was ready, willing and able to settle the sale in accordance with the first alternative on 15 November.
  • Although the orders of 15 August required payment by 15 November the parties agreed to extend the time for settlement to 11.30am on 16 November.  The enforcement application was relisted at 10am on 16 November and stood down pending settlement of the transfer.  However, the transaction did not settle at 11.30am due to a discrepancy between the Transfer and a mortgage, the defendant’s lender Westpac requiring the parties to execute a new Transfer to conform with the terms upon which it had agreed to advance finance.  The defendant and his solicitors then took steps to remedy this and planned to be able to settle at 3:30pm.  However, at about 1.40pm the plaintiff elected to take the second alternative.  When the hearing resumed at around 2.30pm counsel for the defendant sought orders compelling the parties to attend settlement at 3:30pm.  The Federal Magistrate dismissed both this application and the enforcement application on the basis that both parties had complied with their obligations but the bank had prevented settlement, and that to order the parties to attend settlement at 3.30pm would conflict with the orders of 15 August.
  • In December 2012 and February 2014 the defendant refused the plaintiff’s tender of $50,000.
  • In January 2014 an application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the enforcement application was itself dismissed but the judge commented in substance that instead of appealing the defendant should have commenced proceedings under s. 90SN(1)(c) of the Family Law Act which provided that if, on application by a person affected by an order in property settlement proceedings, the court was satisfied that a person had defaulted in carrying out an obligation imposed by the order and it was just and equitable, the court had a discretion to vary or set aside the order and if appropriate substitute another order.  An application to the High Court for special leave to appeal against the judge’s decision failed.
  • In February 2014 the defendant filed a contravention application in the Federal Circuit Court directed at the plaintiff and her solicitors.  This was dismissed in September 2014, and an application to the Family Court for leave to appeal against this dismissal was itself dismissed except as to a question of possession of chattels which was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court, and an application to the High Court for special leave to appeal against the Family Court decision was itself dismissed.  On the remitted question the defendant failed as did an appeal against this dismissal.
  • The plaintiff applied for removal of the caveat under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3), for an injunction restraining the defendant from further caveating, and for compensation under s. 118.  The defendant argued that he had an equitable interest in the land by reason of being the beneficiary of a trust created by the final orders dated 15 August 2012 and having the potential to bring an application to have the orders dismissing the enforcement application and/or the contravention application varied or set aside for fraud.  He also contended that failure of the transaction to settle at 11.30am on 16 November 2012 was not attributable to the action of his bank but to the plaintiff’s actions.

Daly AsJ ordered removal of the caveat on condition that on any sale or refinancing $50,000 be set aside to meet the defendant’s entitlements under the final orders, holding –

  1. An estate or interest in land required to support a caveat must be an interest in respect of which equity would give specific relief against the land itself, either by way of requiring the provision of a registrable instrument or in some other way, for example, ordering a sale to enable a charge to be satisfied out of the proceeds. [67]
  2. The allegation that there was fraud arising from the solicitor for the plaintiff’s affidavit sworn on 31 October 2012, or by counsel’s statements during the hearing on 16 November, was untenable. However, any claim to set aside an order for fraud, which in the case of the orders in the enforcement and contravention applications was accordingly very weak (the strength of the caveator’s claim being relevant to whether the caveat should be maintained), was a mere equity, not a proprietary interest, and so did not found a caveatable interest. [72]-[74], [86]-[90]
  3. Section 91(1) of the Evidence Act 2008 provided that evidence of a decision, or a finding of fact in another proceeding was inadmissible to prove the existence of a fact that was in issue in that proceeding. However, it was doubtful that s. 91(1) excluded evidence contained in reasons for judgment of admissions or concessions made by a party in the course of the other proceeding. The defendant had made such admissions or concessions to the effect that the plaintiff’s bank could discharge its mortgage by the scheduled date.  And the defendant or his counsel had in previous proceedings repeatedly acknowledged that the defendant’s bank was responsible for the failure to settle on 16 November 2012. [82]-[84]
  4. Any claim under the Family Law Act s. 90SN(1) was a statutory claim incapable of giving rise to an equitable interest. [90]
  5. The interpretation of the final orders and of the plaintiff’s entitlement to elect to take the second alternative had been litigated extensively. The defendant was estopped from further litigating either his entitlements under the final orders or the validity of this election.  Even if the question of the alleged fraud had not yet been expressly raised in previous court proceedings, then they should have been so raised having regard to the principles of Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun (1981) 147 CLR 589.  It was unreasonable for the defendant not to have raised allegations of fraud in the actual enforcement and contravention applications. [90], [93]
  6. The court had considered whether the defendant had any caveatable interest, not just that claimed in the caveat (a claim to the constructive trust having been subsumed in the final orders). And, although in the final orders of 15 August 2012 paragraph 2 gave the defendant an equitable interest in the property akin to that of a purchaser (which alternative had not however been taken) and paragraph 5.2 created a trust, that trust did not survive one of the alternatives in the orders being taken. [71], [94]-[96], [99]
  7. The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured removal of the caveat because of the plaintiff’s financial circumstances. [100]
  8. Given the history of litigation and circumstances of the case the defendant was restrained from lodging any further caveats over the land. [103]

Philip H. Barton

          Owen Dixon Chambers West

        Wednesday, August 30, 2023