Parola v Parola

[2009] WASC 190

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   PAROLA -v- PAROLA [2009] WASC 190

CORAM:   BEECH J

HEARD:   26 JUNE 2009

DELIVERED          :   26 JUNE 2009

PUBLISHED           :  3 JULY 2009

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1649 of 2009

BETWEEN:   WILLIAM CALEY PAROLA

First Plaintiff

JANET MAVIS PAROLA
Second Plaintiff

AND

PAULA MARIE PAROLA
First Defendant

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Real property - Caveats - Whether claims to caveatable interests have or may have substance - Whether serious question to be tried - Turns on own facts

Practice and procedure - Ex parte application - Whether orders should be discharged on grounds of material non-disclosure

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Ex parte orders extending operation of caveats discharged

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                  :     Mr G C T Hoe

Second Plaintiff             :     Mr G C T Hoe

First Defendant              :     Mr W Vogt

Second Defendant         :     No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                  :     Hoe Lawyers

Second Plaintiff             :     Hoe Lawyers

First Defendant              :     Vogt Graham Lawyers

Second Defendant         :     No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138

Bell Group NV (in liq) v Aspinall (1998) 19 WAR 561

Brink's Mat Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 3 All ER 188

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 55; (2004) 218 CLR 471

Petelin v Cullen [1975] HCA 24; (1975) 132 CLR 355

Re Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission; Ex parte Corruption and Crime Commission [2008] WASC 305

BEECH J:  (These reasons are an edited version of the reasons delivered extemporaneously on 26 June 2009).

Introduction

1. The first named plaintiff, Mr William Parola, is the father of the first defendant, Ms Paula Parola.  The second named plaintiff, Ms Janet Parola, is the wife of the first named plaintiff.

2. On 7 April 2009 the plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for orders extending the operation of two caveats lodged over property owned by the first defendant.  On 9 April 2009 Kenneth Martin J heard the application ex parte.   His Honour made the orders sought by the plaintiffs, namely that the operation of both caveats be extended until further order.

3. On 20 May 2009 the first defendant filed an application to vacate the orders of 9 April 2009.  It is this application which is before me today.

4. I would discharge the orders extending the operation of the caveats for two reasons.  First, I find that there is no serious question to be tried as to whether the plaintiffs have a caveatable interest.  Secondly, I would in any event discharge the order by reason of the plaintiffs' material nondisclosure in their ex parte application filed on 7 April 2009. 

Serious question to be tried

1. I begin with the issue of whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated a serious question to be tried in relation to the caveatable interest claimed. 

2. The legal principles relevant to caveats are outlined in my decision in Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138 [42] ‑ [56].

3. The plaintiffs claim…