| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST
S ECI 2023 01781
BETWEEN:
| JILLIAN ROSEMARY LIDGETT | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| SIMON JOHN LIDGETT | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Irving AsJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 31 October 2023 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 30 November 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Lidgett v Lidgett |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 705 |
---
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Application to file amended statement of claim under r 36.01 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules (Vic) – New allegations sought to be raised – Prayer for relief unchanged - Amendments clarify real issues in dispute – Application granted.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary judgment – Where defendant seeks summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim to an interest in the defendant’s property – Whether plaintiff’s claim has no real prospect of success – Application dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr J Lipinski | Heinz Law |
| For the Defendant | Mr D Clough | Cinque Oakley Bryant Lawyers |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
Evidence and materials..................................................................................................................... 1
The statement of claim................................................................................................................. 2
The plaintiff’s proposed amended statement of claim............................................................ 3
The plaintiff’s amendment application...................................................................................... 7
The defendant’s dismissal application........................................................................................ 12
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 14
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
This proceeding concerns a dispute between a mother and her son over a piece of land in Bacchus Marsh in the State of Victoria. They are also in dispute in another proceeding in this Court over a farming property.
Since 1995 the defendant, Simon Lidgett, has been the registered proprietor of 6 Lerderberg Street, Bacchus Marsh (Property). The plaintiff, Jillian Lidgett, Simon’s mother, has lived in the Property since around that same time. In early 2023 the plaintiff registered a caveat on the title to the Property. The plaintiff’s asserted interest in the Property is described as an implied, resulting or constructive trust. The defendant disputes the plaintiff has the interest she claims in the caveat. The plaintiff has commenced this proceeding seeking a declaration that the defendant holds 66.66% of his interest in the Property on resulting trust for the plaintiff.
This judgment relates to:
(a) the plaintiff’s application for leave to file an amended statement of claim; and
(b) an application by the defendant to dismiss the plaintiff’s statement of claim on the basis that it has no real prospect of success.
For the reasons that follow I have decided to grant the plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of claim and to dismiss the defendant’s summary dismissal application.
Evidence and materials
In support of her application for leave to amend her statement of claim, the plaintiff relied upon:
(a) the affidavit of Simon John French sworn 14 August 2023 (first French affidavit);
(b) the affidavit of Simon John French sworn 25 August 2023;
(c) the affidavit of Simon John French sworn 26 October 2023 (third French affidavit); and
(d) written submissions dated 26 October 2023.
In support of his dismissal application filed 23 June 2023 the…
Continue reading Lidgett v Lidgett
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lidgett v Lidgett [2023] VSC 705
- Case
- [2023] VSC 705
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to amend her statement of claim to include new allegations. The court also needed to determine whether the defendant's application for summary judgment should be granted. The court examined whether the plaintiff's claim had any real prospect of success.
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to amend her statement of claim to include the new allegations. The court found that the amendments clarified the real issues in dispute and were not an attempt to raise new claims. The court also dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff's claim had a real prospect of success.
The court granted the plaintiff's application to amend her statement of claim and dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment. The case will proceed to trial, with the amended statement of claim being the basis of the plaintiff's claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.