Legal Research
Cases
Nelson v Greenman

Nelson v Greenman

Case [2024] VSC 704 15 November 2024

Adverse Possession

Easements & Covenants

Trusts & Equity

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2024 04778

IN THE MATTER of an application under subsection 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958

BETWEEN:

SIMON PATRICK NELSON (IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF STEPHEN ROSS DOUGLAS, A BANKRUPT)	Plaintiff
v
PAUL SPENCER GREENMAN	First Defendant
REGISTRAR OF TITLES FOR VICTORIA	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gobbo AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 October 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Nelson v Greenman & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 704

---

REAL PROPERTY — Caveats — Application for removal of caveat under s 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958(Vic) — Whether there is a prima facie case to be tried — Trust alleged — Where first defendant’s claims are based on pseudo-legal arguments and fatuous made up legal principles — Claims of the “Living Man” — Allegations of the existence of “the People’s Court of Terra Australis” — Fatuous legal principles — Whether the balance of convenience favours the removal of the caveat — Order for removal of caveat to be made — Indemnity costs order against caveator.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D Baker, solicitor	Baker Jones
The First Defendant in person	Mr P Greenman
No appearance for the Second Defendant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Factual matters.................................................................................................................................... 2

Legal Principles.................................................................................................................................. 5

Submissions, analysis and consideration..................................................................................... 6

Documents submitted by Einsiedels.......................................................................................... 6
Documents submitted by the first defendant........................................................................... 9
Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 16

Conduct of the first defendant...................................................................................................... 18

Living Man................................................................................................................................... 18
Unilateral agreements................................................................................................................ 20
Other submissions....................................................................................................................... 20
The People’s Court of Terra Australis...................................................................................... 23
Pseudo-law concepts.................................................................................................................. 23

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 27

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This in an application by the plaintiff to remove a caveat pursuant to s 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) (‘TLA’). The caveat sought to be removed is registered on behalf of the first defendant in dealing number AX654586U (‘Caveat’) over the land previously known as Lot 1, Walker Street, Koo Wee Rup in the State of Victoria and now known as 6 Walker Street, Koo Wee Rup in the State of Victoria described in Certificate of Title Volume 10234 Folio 274 (‘Land’). The ground of claim stated in the Caveat is an interest in the freehold estate of the Land under an ‘implied, resulting or constructive trust’. The second defendant has been joined to the proceeding for procedural reasons and has indicated that they do not wish to be heard in relation to the application.

The plaintiff relies on the following affidavits:

(a) the affidavit of Simon Patrick Nelson sworn on 4 September 2024 (‘Nelson Affidavit’); and

(b) the affidavit of David Alan Baker sworn on 5 September 2024 (‘Baker Affidavit’).

Included in the Nelson Affidavit and the Baker Affidavit were various documents supplied by or on behalf of the first defendant purportedly in support of…

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 Nelson v Greenman

Details

AGLC: Nelson v Greenman [2024] VSC 704
Case: [2024] VSC 704
Decision Date: 15 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nelson v Greenman involved a dispute over a caveat lodged against a property transfer in Victoria. The plaintiff, Nelson, sought the removal of a caveat lodged by Greenman, the first defendant, under section 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958(Vic). The first defendant's claims were founded on various pseudo-legal arguments and invented legal principles, including references to a "Living Man" and the non-existent "People’s Court of Terra Australis". The legal issues before the court were whether there was a prima facie case to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the removal of the caveat.

The court examined the first defendant's claims and found them to be based on nonsensical legal arguments and made-up legal principles. It was determined that there was no genuine legal basis for the caveat, and the first defendant's claims were frivolous. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no prima facie case to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured the removal of the caveat. The court ordered the caveat to be removed and also made an indemnity costs order against the first defendant for the costs incurred due to the frivolous nature of the caveat.

The final orders of the court were the removal of the caveat and an indemnity costs order against the first defendant for the costs incurred in dealing with the application. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that legal processes are not abused through the lodging of baseless or frivolous caveats.

Orders