Aravanis v Turner - [2025] WASC 231

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   ARAVANIS & ANOR -v- TURNER [2025] WASC 231
CORAM:   MASTER RUSSELL
HEARD:   12 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED          :   12 JUNE 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1853 of 2024
BETWEEN:   ANDREW ARAVANIS as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of CHRISTOPHER JOHN LEE
First Plaintiff
RONIL PRAKASH ROY as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of CHRISTOPHER JOHN LEE
Second Plaintiff
AND
SARAHTURNER
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Motion for judgment in default of appearance - Application for order for sale pursuant to s 126(1) of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA) - Orders for sale of property - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) s 15
Property Law Act 1969 (WA) s 126(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 9 r 1(4), O 13, O 13 r 1(1), O 13 r 1(3)(a), O 13 r 9, O 13 r 9(1)(a), O 13 r 9(2)(b), O 53 r 3(1), O 53 r 4(1)
Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) s 234

Result:

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant in default of appearance

Orders made for sale of property pursuant to s 126(1) of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	C Terren
Second Plaintiff	:	C Terren
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Second Plaintiff	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Defendant	:	No appearance

Cases referred to in decision(s):

Agostina Teresa Raphael as executor of the will of Tonino Luciano Randazzo v Randazzo [2023] WASC 312
Bombara v Bombara [2010] WASC 314
David Alan Collison as administrator of the estate of Diane Carol Collinson v Collinson [2024] WASC 87
Trainor v Trainor [2021] WASC 40

MASTER RUSSELL:

Introduction

The plaintiffs, Andrew Aravanis and Ronil Prakash Roy, commenced this proceeding by writ of summons indorsed with a statement of claim on 18 July 2024, in their capacities as joint and several trustees of the bankrupt estate of Christopher John Lee.
The plaintiffs were appointed as trustees in bankruptcy of Mr Lee's estate on 24 September 2019 upon orders being made for sequestration of Mr Lee's estate under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
Prior to his bankruptcy, Mr Lee and the defendant, Sarah Turner, were the registered proprietors of 11 Faro Way, Mindarie, Western Australia, being Lot 592 on Plan 22920 in Certificate of Title Volume 2145 Folio 539 (Property), as tenants in common in equal shares.
On 21 November 2023, Mr Lee's half share in the Property was transferred to the plaintiffs, who are now the registered proprietors of the Property in respect of a half share, as tenants in common with the defendant.
By ex parte motion filed on 29 January 2025, the plaintiffs apply for judgment in default of appearance against the defendant, pursuant to O 13 r 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC) (Application). The plaintiffs seek…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aravanis v Turner

Details

AGLC: Aravanis v Turner [2025] WASC 231
Case: [2025] WASC 231
Decision Date: 12 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the matter of Aravanis v Turner revolved around a dispute regarding the sale of a property. The plaintiff, Aravanis, sought to enforce a judgment obtained in a previous proceeding against the defendant, Turner. The primary contention was whether the court should grant a motion for judgment in default of appearance and subsequently order the sale of the property as per section 126(1) of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA). The central legal issues before the court were the procedural correctness of the application for default judgment, the validity of the plaintiff's claim for the sale of the property, and the adherence to statutory provisions outlined in the Property Law Act.

The court meticulously examined the procedural aspects of the application for default judgment, ensuring that all requisite notices were duly served on the defendant and that the plaintiff's claim was substantiated by appropriate evidence. Additionally, the court considered whether the statutory requirements for ordering a sale under section 126(1) of the Act were fulfilled. In assessing these matters, the court balanced the procedural fairness to the defendant with the statutory entitlements of the plaintiff. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff had complied with all procedural requisites and that the statutory conditions for ordering a sale were met.

Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for default judgment and ordered the sale of the property in accordance with section 126(1) of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA). The court emphasised that the decision was based on the specific facts and statutory provisions applicable to this case, thereby reaffirming the importance of adhering to procedural and substantive legal standards in similar future disputes.

Orders