JUDGE:	Derham AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 June 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 July 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Leane v Dalbon
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 461

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Setting aside judgment obtained in the absence of the defendant – Extending time within which to do so – Summary order of the Court that the plaintiff recover possession of property – Defendant failed to attend trial – Whether time should be extended – Whether order for possession should be set aside – Time extended and order set aside – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 49.02, r 3.02 – Rosing v Ben Shemesh [1960] VR 1738, Xiao Hui Ying v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2012] VSCA 316 applied – Vimplane Pty Ltd v Cirss [2005] VSC 45 considered.

PROPERTY LAW AND TRUSTS – Resulting or constructive trust and proprietary estoppel – Whether facts support a prima facie case for the recognition of a resulting or constructive trust or a proprietary estoppel – Prima facie case established – Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1985) 160 CLR 583; Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101; Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505 Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577 referred to.

ESTOPPEL – Former adjudication – Whether summary order for recovery of possession of land on basis that occupier is a trespasser creates an issue estoppel precluding defendant from claiming a proprietary interest in the land in proceedings in the County Court – Whether the existence of the issue estoppel warrants the setting aside of the order for possession – Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464; Ramsay v Pigram (1968) 118 CLR 271; Linprint Pty Ltd v Hexham Textiles Pty Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 508 referred to.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms M Rozner	Palmer Stevens & Rennick
For the Defendant	Mr G Lubofsky	Catcher Legal Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Principles under r 49.02..................................................................................................................... 3

Mr Dalbon’s evidence and submissions....................................................................................... 6

Prima facie case in defence of the claim.................................................................................... 6
Reason for absence and delay..................................................................................................... 9
Prejudice....................................................................................................................................... 12

Plaintiff’s evidence before Mukhtar AsJ..................................................................................... 14

The Order and the reasons............................................................................................................. 16

Evidence since the Order of Mukhtar AsJ.................................................................................. 18

Plaintiff’s submissions................................................................................................................... 21

Res judicata and issue estoppel................................................................................................. 22
Prima Facie Case on the merits................................................................................................. 23
Reason for absence and delay................................................................................................... 25
Prejudice....................................................................................................................................... 27

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 29

Issue estoppel............................................................................................................................... 29
Prima facie case in defence of the claim.................................................................................. 34
Resulting trust.................................................................................................................... 34
Constructive trust.............................................................................................................. 37
Common intention constructive trust............................................................................ 38
Proprietary estoppel.......................................................................................................... 39
Consideration – arguable defence to the claim for possession................................... 42

Reason for absence and delay................................................................................................... 44
Prejudice....................................................................................................................................... 47

The discretion................................................................................................................................... 48

Costs.................................................................................................................................................... 49

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 50

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The defendant applies pursuant to r…

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 Leane v Dalbon

Details

AGLC: Leane v Dalbon [2020] VSC 461
Case: [2020] VSC 461
Decision Date: 29 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leane v Dalbon, the defendant, Mr Dalbon, sought to set aside a judgment in possession obtained by the plaintiff, Mr Leane, in his absence. The dispute arose from a property matter where Mr Leane claimed possession of a property against Mr Dalbon, who was deemed a trespasser. Mr Dalbon did not attend the trial, leading to a summary order in favour of Mr Leane. Mr Dalbon subsequently applied to the court to extend the time to set aside the judgment and to set aside the possession order, arguing that a resulting or constructive trust, or proprietary estoppel, was applicable.

The court had to determine whether the time for setting aside the judgment should be extended and if the possession order should be set aside. It also needed to consider whether the facts supported a prima facie case for the recognition of a resulting or constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. Additionally, the court examined whether the summary order for possession created an issue estoppel precluding Mr Dalbon from claiming a proprietary interest in the land.

The court found that the time for setting aside the judgment should be extended under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). It also determined that the order for possession should be set aside, as there was a prima facie case for the recognition of a resulting or constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. The court held that the summary order for possession did not create an issue estoppel precluding Mr Dalbon from claiming a proprietary interest, and thus, the order for possession was set aside.

Orders