Goedemans v Perronnet - [2023] VSC 411

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2021 00535

ELIZABETH GOEDEMANS	Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
v
INGRID PERRONNET	First Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim
and
FRÉDÉRIC MOSSON	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McDonald J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27–31 March, 3 April, 2 May 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 July 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Goedemans v Perronnet
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 411

---

DAMAGES – First defendant occupied plaintiff’s premises pursuant to license permitting her to undertake renovations subject to receiving plaintiff’s consent – First defendant undertook works without first obtaining consent – First defendant also undertook works with plaintiff’s consent which were substandard and/or undertaken without requisite permits – First defendant liable to pay damages to the plaintiff equivalent to the cost of rectification works.

TRUSTS – First defendant claiming declaration that plaintiff holds property subject to the first defendant’s 50 per cent interest in the property with the remaining 50 per cent to pass to the first defendant upon the plaintiff’s death – Claim based upon an agreement entered into between plaintiff and first defendant pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to first defendant being registered on title as having a 50 per cent interest as a tenant in common with the remaining 50 per cent to pass to the first defendant upon the plaintiff’s death – No agreement as alleged – Claim for declaration dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr L Stanistreet	Meerkin & Apel
For the Defendants	Mr R Moore	Aptum Legal Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff, Elizabeth Goedemans, is a 76-year-old retired nurse. Elizabeth has three children: Ingrid Perronnet (the first defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim), Xavier Perronnet, and Sandra Perronnet. Elizabeth’s partner is Joe Nowicki. Ingrid’s partner is the second defendant Frédéric Mosson. I shall refer to the individuals involved in this matter by their first names without any disrespect intended.

The primary claim brought by Elizabeth in her statement of claim filed 26 February 2021 was for possession of the property located at 5 Holyrood Street, Camberwell (‘No. 5’).[1] Since the filing of the statement of claim, Ingrid and Frédéric have vacated the premises. By her amended statement of claim (‘ASOC’) Elizabeth seeks damages for rectification of a number of works undertaken by the defendants to No. 5.
[1]More particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume 5498 Folio 534: CB2029, Historical Title Search.

The majority of the trial addressed Ingrid’s counterclaim. Ingrid alleges that, by reason of either an oral agreement entered into in April 2018 or a proprietary estoppel arising from the parties’ conduct, she is immediately entitled to a 50 per cent interest in No. 5, with the remaining 50 per cent interest to pass to her on Elizabeth’s death. Ingrid seeks declarations to give effect to the alleged agreement. For the reasons which follow I have concluded that there was no agreement between Elizabeth and Ingrid in April 2018, or at any time, that Elizabeth…

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 Goedemans v Perronnet

Details

AGLC: Goedemans v Perronnet [2023] VSC 411
Case: [2023] VSC 411
Decision Date: 20 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goedemans v Perronnet, the plaintiff sought damages and declarations from the first defendant in relation to renovations carried out on the plaintiff’s property. The first defendant was initially granted a licence to renovate the premises, subject to obtaining the plaintiff's consent. However, the first defendant proceeded with works without this consent and carried out substandard work or work without necessary permits. The plaintiff sought damages equivalent to the cost of rectifying the substandard works and a declaration that the property was held on trust, with the first defendant entitled to a 50 per cent interest, which would pass to her upon the plaintiff's death.

The court was tasked with determining whether the first defendant was liable for damages for the substandard renovations and whether there was an agreement between the parties that entitled the first defendant to a 50 per cent interest in the property. The central issue was the existence of an agreement between the parties concerning the property's ownership and the first defendant's entitlement to a share of the property upon the plaintiff's death. The court had to assess the evidence and arguments presented to determine the validity of these claims.

The court found that the first defendant had indeed undertaken renovations without obtaining the necessary consent and that the works performed were substandard or not carried out with the requisite permits, justifying the award of damages. The court carefully examined the evidence and concluded that there was no agreement between the parties as alleged by the first defendant. Therefore, the claim for a declaration that the property was held on trust with the first defendant entitled to a 50 per cent interest was dismissed. The court ordered the first defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the cost of rectifying the substandard works.

Orders