Legal Research
Cases
Bell v Graham

Bell v Graham

Case [2000] VSC 142 11 May 2000

Adverse Possession

Equitable Estoppel

Family Law Act 1975 (C'lth)

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 6625 of 1999

DIERDRE LUCILLE BELL	Plaintiff
v.
PETER BEST GRAHAM	First Defendant
and
DIANNE MARGARET GRAHAM	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 February 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 May 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bell v Graham & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 142	First Revision 17 May 2000

---

Real Property – caveat – application by one tenant in common for removal of caveat by estranged wife of another tenant in common – interest of caveator claiming property entitlement pursuant to Family Law Act (C’lth) – whether the claim of a spouse for an order of settlement of property in Family Law proceedings can create a caveatable interest – application for declaration of interest in real property – Family Law Act 1975 (C’lth) s.79 – Transfer of Land Act 1958 s.90(3).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P. Testart of Counsel	McGrath Carey Katz
For the First Defendant	Mr N. Webb	Webb and Korfiatos
For the Second Defendant	Mr N. Byrne	Nicholas P. Byrne

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff in this proceeding, Dierdre Lucille Bell (“Mrs Bell”) by an Originating Motion issued 26 August 1999 claims a declaration against the first and second defendants, Peter Best Graham (“Mr Graham”) and Dianne Margaret Graham (“Mrs Graham”) that they have no interest in land situated at 28 Ocean View Crescent, Somers (“the land”). Furthermore, Mrs Bell seeks an order that Mrs Graham remove a caveat which she has lodged against the title to the land. Mr Graham and Mrs Graham were formerly husband and wife. Mrs Bell is a sister of Mr Graham.

The History of the Proceedings

It is appropriate to set out a brief history of this proceeding and the proceedings in the Family Court of Australia which preceded it. Mr and Mrs Graham separated in December 1993. A Decree Nisi Dissolution of Marriage was granted on 21 February 1995. By proceeding No. ML11376 of 1993 issued by Mrs Graham in the Family Court of Australia (“the family law proceedings”) she made application for distribution of property from her former husband to her. On 19 March 1996 in the course of those proceedings Mr Graham swore an affidavit which was subsequently filed in the Family Court. In that affidavit Mr Graham deposed to having an interest in the land. He valued that interest to be “approximately $20,000”. No doubt in consequence of Mr Graham’s assertion that he held such an interest, on 8 January 1998 Mrs Graham lodged a caveat against the title to the land. Subsequent to the lodging of the caveat, Mrs Bell intervened in the Family Law Proceedings. However, leave was granted for Mrs Bell to withdraw from the Family Law proceedings on 12 November 1999, upon Morgan J ruling that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to determine the issues between Mrs Bell and Mr and Mrs Graham. As I have said, in the meantime, on…

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 Bell v Graham

Details

AGLC: Bell v Graham [2000] VSC 142
Case: [2000] VSC 142
Decision Date: 11 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bell v Graham, the dispute involved the ownership of a property held in tenancy in common. The application was brought by one tenant in common, seeking the removal of a caveat lodged by the estranged wife of the other tenant in common. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether a claim by a spouse for an order of settlement of property in Family Law proceedings could establish a caveatable interest under the Transfer of Land Act 1958.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 and the Transfer of Land Act 1958. It considered whether the spouse's claim for a settlement of property in Family Law proceedings constituted a proprietary interest that could support a caveat. The court found that a mere claim for a settlement of property, without any substantive order or determination by the Family Court, did not constitute a caveatable interest. The court held that the claim did not confer a proprietary interest that could be protected by a caveat.

Accordingly, the application for the removal of the caveat was successful. The court ruled that the estranged wife's claim for an order of settlement of property in Family Law proceedings did not create a caveatable interest under the Transfer of Land Act 1958. Consequently, the caveat was removed, and the respondent was ordered to do so forthwith.

Orders