BRIFFA -v- BRIFFA [2016] WASC 406

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 406
Case No:	CIV:3126/2016	Heard:	14 DECEMBER 2016
Coram:	BANKS-SMITH J	Delivered:	14/12/16
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LEWIS BRIFFA ANGELA CARMEL BRIFFA MARIA BRIFFA
Catchwords:	Real property Application to extend caveat Whether caveatable interest where claim is to proceeds of sale
Legislation:	Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138C
Case References:	Bride v The Registrar of Titles [2015] WASC 11 Como v Helmers [2011] WASC 179 Meynert v Leafdale Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 102

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : BRIFFA -v- BRIFFA [2016] WASC 406 CORAM : BANKS-SMITH J HEARD : 14 DECEMBER 2016 DELIVERED : 14 DECEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 3126 of 2016 BETWEEN : LEWIS BRIFFA

ANGELA CARMEL BRIFFA

Plaintiffs

AND

MARIA BRIFFA

Defendant

Catchwords:

Real property - Application to extend caveat - Whether caveatable interest where claim is to proceeds of sale

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138C

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : In person

Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : In person

Defendant : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bride v The Registrar of Titles [2015] WASC 11
Como v Helmers [2011] WASC 179
Meynert v Leafdale Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 102

BANKS-SMITH J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 14 December and has been edited from the transcript).

Introduction

1 The plaintiffs apply by originating summons pursuant to s 138C of the Transfer of Land 1893 (WA) (TLA) for an order extending a caveat over a property in Beechboro owned by the defendant. The plaintiffs, Lewis Briffa and Angela Briffa, are the son and daughter respectively of the defendant, Maria Briffa. As they share the same surname and in order to avoid confusion, I will refer to the parties by their first names. I mean no disrespect in doing so.

2 The application was supported by two affidavits, one filed by Lewis and one by Angela. They are self-represented and I have ascertained the nature of their application from the affidavit evidence, as the originating summons does not seek any specific relief. Both Angela and Lewis made helpful oral submissions before me. The plaintiffs did not provide an undertaking as to damages as required by Supreme Court Practice Direction 4.3.4, but informed me in court that they would be willing to do so if required.

3 The matter came before me today on an urgent ex parte basis, as (I am told) the caveat is due to lapse at midnight. I am told that Maria was informed of the hearing, although she did not appear. I am also told that the application was precipitated by a letter from Landgate issued at the request of Maria, and I infer that Maria opposes the extension of the caveat.

4 Frequently where applications to extend caveats are brought so…

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 Briffa v Briffa

Details

AGLC: Briffa v Briffa [2016] WASC 406
Case: [2016] WASC 406
Decision Date: 14 DECEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Briffa v Briffa was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved a claim by the respondent, Mr. Briffa, for an extension of a caveat lodged over family property. The property was held in joint names, and the respondent's claim was based on an alleged agreement with his mother, the appellant, to receive proceeds from the sale of the property. The court was required to determine whether such a claim constituted a caveatable interest under the Real Property Act 1900 (Vic).

The central legal issue was whether the respondent's claim to the proceeds of sale of the jointly-held property constituted a caveatable interest. The court considered the nature of the interest claimed and the requirements for a caveat to be validly extended under the Real Property Act. The respondent argued that his interest in the proceeds from the sale of the property was a sufficient basis for the extension of the caveat. The appellant contended that the claim did not amount to an interest in the land itself and was therefore not caveatable.

The Supreme Court found that the respondent's claim did not constitute a caveatable interest. The court held that the interest claimed by the respondent was not an interest in the land itself but rather an interest in the proceeds of sale, which did not meet the criteria for a caveatable interest under the Act. The court dismissed the application for an extension of the caveat, finding that the respondent's interest was not sufficient to support the maintenance of the caveat over the property. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the caveat was removed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.