Miller v Martin

[2021] VSCA 108

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2020 0005
S EAPCI 2021 0009

JAMES EDWARD MILLER	Applicant
v
IAN DONALD MARTIN and others according to the attached schedule	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	TATE, NIALL and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 February 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 April 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 108
JUDGMENTS APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCAT 29, [2020] VCAT 1218 (Senior Member Walker)

---

REAL PROPERTY – Co-ownership of land – Sale and distribution of proceeds reflected registered interests on title – No credible evidence of source of funds – No adjustment of interests – Just and fair division – Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376, Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Gheorghui [2007] VSC 412, applied – Property Law Act1958 ss 228 and 233.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Principle of finality – Res judicata – Issue estoppel –  Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446, Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, applied.

COSTS – No difference in relative strengths of parties’ claims – Equal responsibility for time wasted – Each party to bear their own costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Applicant appeared in person
For the First to Fourth Respondents	Mr R G Squirrell	GE Law Services Pty Ltd

TATE JA
NIALL JA
KENNEDY JA:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary......................................................................................	3
The purchase of the beach house.............................................................................	6
The proceedings.........................................................................................................	8
(1)  The original VCAT decision.................................................................................	8
(2)  The substantive Mukhtar AsJ decision.................................................................	17
(3)  The remitter — the sale and distribution decision................................................	18
(4)  The restraint decision............................................................................................	25
(5)  Appeals from Mukhtar AsJ...................................................................................	28
(6)  Current appeals — First appeal from VCAT: the sale and distribution decision (2020/ 0005).................................................................................................................	31
(7)  The costs decision..................................................................................................	31
(8)  Current appeals — Second appeal from VCAT: the costs decision and others (2021/ 0009).................................................................................................................	39
Appeals restricted to questions of law..................................................................	42
The key issues cannot be re-agitated — res judicata..........................................	44
The fundamental issue..............................................................................................	47
(1)  The evidence of 21 March 2016.............................................................................	47
(2)  Reliance on objective evidence...............................................................................	53
(3)  Torrens system — title by registration.................................................................	55
(4)  Registered interests on title — sale and distribution decision reflects registered interests..................................................................................................................	57
(5)  No party receives their costs.................................................................................	59
Conclusion on the applications for leave to appeal............................................	61

Introduction and summary

1. The applicant, James Miller (‘Miller’), seeks leave to appeal from decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) in relation to the sale of a beach house located in Moggs Creek in Victoria (‘the beach house’) and the distribution of the sale proceeds.  There are two separate applications for leave to appeal, which this Court heard together.[1]  The matters have a complex and protracted procedural history. 

   [1]Proceedings S EAPCI 2020 0005 (the first appeal’) and S EAPCI 2021 0009 (‘the second appeal’).  For convenience, in what follows we refer simply to ‘the appeal’, ‘the appeals’, ‘the current appeals’,…