Hall v Banfield - [2024] VSC 166

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2023 01358

BETWEEN:

GLENDA ADELE HALL	Plaintiff
v
LEANNE JANE BANFIELD & ANOR (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Irving AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 February 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 April 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hall v Banfield
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 166

---

LEASE RECTIFICATION — Whether non-party to a contract has standing to seek rectification — Summary judgment — Whether defendants have prospect of success — Civil Procedure Act 2010 ss 61, 62, 63, 64 – Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S Rubenstein of counsel with Mr S Cromb of counsel	Merton Lawyers
For the Defendants	Mr B Harding of counsel	Neylon Legal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary judgment principles................................................................................................... 3
The plaintiff’s cause of action...................................................................................................... 5
The plaintiff’s evidence in support of her claim for judgment.............................................. 5
The defence and counterclaim.................................................................................................... 9
The defendants’ evidence in defence of Ms Hall’s claim and support of their counterclaim 11
Consideration.............................................................................................................................. 13
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 17

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Glenda Adele Hall (Ms Hall) has farmed a small dairy property in Willow Grove, Victoria (Property) for over 27 years. She alleges that she leased the entirety of the Property from William and Betty Horner (Mr and Mrs Horner), the Property’s aged owners. Ms Hall says she allowed Mr and Mrs Horner to live on the Property in what became known as ‘Horner House’. In addition to living at Horner House, Mr and Mrs Horner were also permitted to use the Machinery Shed.

Both Mr and Mrs Horner are now deceased. It was Mr Horner who first passed. Following his death, Mrs Horner became the sole proprietor of the Property by right of survivorship. She remained sole proprietor until her passing. Ms Wenda Jane Banfield, daughter of Mrs Horner and mother of the first defendant, is the executrix of the estate of Betty Jane Horner (deceased) and is, in that capacity, the registered proprietor of the Property. The first defendant, Ms Leanne Jane Banfield, is Ms Wenda Banfield’s daughter and the late Mrs Horner’s granddaughter. In the months preceding Mrs Horner’s death, Ms Leanne Banfield moved into Horner House. Her partner, Mr Stanely Edward Harris (Mr Harris), moved in subsequently. Mr Harris is the second defendant in this proceeding.

Ms Hall commenced this proceeding by Writ on 5 April 2023. Ms Hall did not commence the proceeding under the summary procedure provided for in Order 53 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (the Rules). Ms Hall seeks Orders to the effect that Ms Leanne Banfield and Mr Harris give up possession of Horner House. She is seeking this on the basis that the couple are occupying it without licence, title, or any other right to occupy. Ms Hall relies on the…

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 Hall v Banfield 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: [2024] VSC 166
Decision Date: 8 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of Hall v Banfield, the dispute centred on the rectification of a lease agreement, with a specific focus on whether a non-party to the contract could seek such rectification. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs, Hall, sought to rectify the lease to reflect a different date of commencement than that specified in the written agreement. The defendants, Banfield, denied the claim and argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek rectification.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues: firstly, whether a non-party to a contract could seek rectification, and secondly, whether the defendants had a prospect of success in their defence. The plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to seek rectification as they were intended beneficiaries of the lease agreement, while the defendants argued that only the contracting parties had the right to seek rectification. The court also needed to consider the application for summary judgment and assess whether the defendants had any viable defences.

The court held that a non-party could only seek rectification if they were an intended beneficiary of the contract. The plaintiffs, as intended beneficiaries, did have standing to seek rectification. However, the court found that the plaintiffs were unable to establish a case for rectification on the facts presented. The defendants, therefore, were successful in their application for summary judgment as the plaintiffs had no prospect of success. The court relied on Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd to determine that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for rectification of the lease agreement. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the application for summary judgment.

Orders