Consolaro v Consolaro

The case involved a dispute between Phillip James Consolaro (the father) and Ross Joseph Consolaro (the son) over a caveat lodged by the son on the father's property. The father sought a declaration that the caveat was lodged without reasonable cause and an order for its removal, along with costs. The son argued that the caveat was lodged to protect his claimed equitable interest in the property, based on his contributions and work on the land prior to 1993. The father contended that the son's claim was barred by a previous compromise and consent judgment in earlier proceedings, res judicata, Anshun estoppel, and the Limitation Act. The court found that the son's claim was not barred by the earlier proceedings or the compromise, as the claims were distinct. The court also held that the son's claim was not an abuse of process and did not conflict with the earlier judgment. Finally, the court determined that the son's claim was not statute-barred, as it was based on an equitable interest rather than a contractual claim. The court dismissed the father's application, finding that the son was not precluded from claiming an interest in the land based on the facts and circumstances relied upon prior to October 1993.