Deabel v V'Landys - [2002] NSWSC 438

CITATION: Deabel v V'Landys [2002] NSWSC 438

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2057/02

HEARING DATE(S): 20 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 21 May 2002

PARTIES :

Amanda Deabel (P)
Peter V'Landys (D)

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

COUNSEL : M Bateman (P)
M Evans (D)

SOLICITORS: Ashlars Lawyers (P)
Swaab Attorneys (D)

CATCHWORDS: REAL PROPERTY - caveats - caveat to protect alleged equitable interest based on financial contributions - whether plaintiff has arguable case on the evidence - application to amend caveat - whether Court has power

LEGISLATION CITED: Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) ss 74F, 74L

CASES CITED: Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Depsun Pty Ltd v Tahore Holdings Pty Ltd (1990) ANZ Conv Rep 334
Jones v Baker [2002] NSWSC 89
Kang v Kwan [2001] NSWSC 624
Mushinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Ryan v Dries [2002] NSWCA 3
The Marriage of Stevens (1991) 15 Fam LR 51

DECISION: Summons dismissed

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

TUESDAY 21 MAY 2002

2057/02 AMANDA DEABEL v PETER V’LANDYS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: By this proceeding the plaintiff seeks, as final relief, leave to amend a caveat which she has lodged against the title to the defendant’s property at Woolwich, and an order extending the operation of the caveat until further order. I was informed from the bar table that the plaintiff contemplates commencing another proceeding seeking to vindicate the rights she alleges in the caveat, but that proceeding has not yet been commenced.

2 The plaintiff and the defendant had an intimate de facto sexual relationship for a period of time from about 1993 to 1997 or 1998, perhaps with a break during that period. The plaintiff says that during that time, she made indirect contributions to the acquisition of various properties in the name of the defendant, by contributing to mortgage repayments, household expenses and the purchase of chattels. She claims that she now has an equitable interest in a proportionate share of the defendant's property at Woolwich. Her counsel made it expressly clear, in answer to a question from me, that the plaintiff relies only on an equitable interest by way of trust, which counsel referred to as a constructive trust, and that she does not rely in the present proceeding on any statutory right, such as a right under the Property Relationship Act (although she may rely on that Act in her foreshadowed proceeding against the defendant).

3 In Schedule 1 of the caveat that she lodged on about 22 February 2002, under the heading "Estate or interest claimed" and the subheading "By virtue of the facts stated below", the following appears:

"The caveator contributed significantly to the mortgage repayments of various previous property’s bought and sold by the registered proprietor the proceeds of which contributed substantially to the registered proprietor being able to purchase the land described above [sic]."

4 The defendant submitted that the instrument of caveat was manifestly defective in form. Schedule 1 of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Deabel v V'Landys and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 438
Decision Date: 21 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Deabel v V'Landys, the plaintiff, Deabel, filed a caveat to protect an alleged equitable interest in a property owned by the defendant, V'Landys. The dispute arose when Deabel claimed that his financial contributions to the purchase of the property entitled him to an equitable interest, which was not recognised in the formal title. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues before the court were whether Deabel had an arguable case based on the evidence provided, and whether the court had the power to allow an amendment to the caveat in light of new evidence.

The court considered the evidence presented by Deabel, including his financial contributions and the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the property. The court found that, based on the evidence, Deabel had an arguable case for an equitable interest. The court also examined the power of the court to allow an amendment to the caveat. The court concluded that it had the power to amend the caveat to reflect the new evidence, provided that the amendment was not an attempt to expand the scope of the claim beyond what was originally argued. The court allowed the amendment, finding that it was necessary to ensure that the caveat accurately reflected Deabel's claim.

The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the relevant legal principles. The court found that Deabel had an arguable case for an equitable interest in the property, and that the amendment to the caveat was necessary to accurately reflect his claim. The court's decision was in line with established legal principles regarding the protection of equitable interests through caveats. The orders of the court were that the amendment to the caveat was allowed, and the matter was to proceed to a hearing to determine the merits of Deabel's claim.

Orders