Legal Research
Cases
Perronnet v Goedemans

Perronnet v Goedemans

Case [2025] VSCA 28 7 March 2025

Appeal

Contract Formation

Post-contractual Conduct

Credibility

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2023 0098

INGRID PERRONNET	Applicant
v
ELIZABETH GOEDEMANS	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NIALL CJ, McLEISH and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 November 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 March 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 28
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VSC 411 (McDonald J)

---

APPEAL – Supreme Court Act 1986, s 17(2) – Appeal pursuant to s 17(2) an appeal by rehearing – Nature of appeal by rehearing.

CONTRACTS – Formation – Alleged oral agreement – Alleged agreement required respondent to transfer half interest in property to applicant with other half transferable upon respondent’s death – Respondent denied agreement – Respondent and other persons advanced competing accounts of events – Trial judge found alleged agreement not established – Whether trial judge’s principal findings of fact erroneous – No documentary evidence supporting applicant’s account – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

CONTRACTS – Whether contract created – Post-contractual conduct – Post-contractual conduct not pointing to agreement – Post-contractual material providing basis to doubt applicant’s credibility – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679; Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129, referred to – Regreen Asset Holdings Pty Ltd v Castricum Brothers Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 286; United Resource Management Pty Ltd v Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 236, applied.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr RG Craig KC with Ms RM Burd
Respondent:		Mr PW Collinson KC with Mr LM Stanistreet
Solicitors
Applicant:	Aptum Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent:	Meerkin & Apel Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Issues in the proceeding

Judge’s reasons

Evidence at trial

Ingrid Perronnet

Lee Holland

Karin Anderson

Elizabeth Goedemans

Joseph Nowicki (‘Joe’)

Xavier Perronnet

Applicant’s submissions

Respondent’s submissions

Legal principles governing the proposed appeal

Consideration of the evidence

Evidence of participants at alternative meetings

Post-contractual conduct

Conclusion

NIALL CJ
MCLEISH JA
KENNEDY JA:

This matter involves a family dispute over a property in Camberwell. The property is owned by the respondent, Elizabeth Goedemans.
After a trial, a judge in the Trial Division found that Elizabeth,[1] aged in her early seventies, had conferred a licence upon her daughter, Ingrid Perronnet, to reside at the property, and to undertake renovations with her consent. The judge also found that there was no agreement between the two women for the transfer of the property. The judge upheld a claim for damages brought by Elizabeth against Ingrid, concerning works undertaken on the property.
[1]Without disrespect, we will refer to the principals in this case by their first names.
Ingrid seeks to appeal against the judge’s findings. Although there are three proposed grounds of appeal, the matter essentially involves a challenge to the judge’s principal findings of fact, in particular, as to events surrounding an alleged agreement between Ingrid and Elizabeth on or around 28 April 2018. In the proposed appeal, this Court would conduct a ‘real review’…

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 Perronnet v Goedemans

Details

AGLC: Perronnet v Goedemans [2025] VSCA 28
Case: [2025] VSCA 28
Decision Date: 7 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Perronnet v Goedemans involved a legal dispute between the applicant, Perronnet, and the respondent, Goedemans, concerning the transfer of property interests. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Perronnet appealed the trial judge's decision that an alleged oral agreement for the transfer of half of Goedemans' property interest to Perronnet was not established. The trial judge had found that Goedemans had denied the agreement and that there was no documentary evidence to support Perronnet's account. The appeal was by rehearing under section 17(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's findings of fact were erroneous, particularly in relation to the absence of documentary evidence and the credibility of Perronnet's account. The court examined whether the trial judge was correct in concluding that the alleged agreement was not established, considering the competing accounts provided by Goedemans and other witnesses. The court also assessed the relevance of post-contractual conduct in determining the existence of a contract, and whether such conduct provided grounds to doubt Perronnet's credibility.

The court found that the trial judge's findings were not erroneous. It was noted that there was no documentary evidence to support Perronnet's claim, and the trial judge had assessed the credibility of the parties and witnesses thoroughly. The court also held that Perronnet's post-contractual conduct did not support the existence of an agreement, and instead, it cast doubt on Perronnet's credibility. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial judge's decision that the alleged oral agreement was not established. The court relied on previous cases such as Fox v Percy and Lee v Lee, and applied the principles from Regreen Asset Holdings Pty Ltd v Castricum Brothers Pty Ltd and United Resource Management Pty Ltd v Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd in reaching its decision.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the trial judge was upheld. The court found no error in the trial judge's findings and confirmed that the alleged oral agreement for the property transfer was not established. Perronnet's appeal was rejected, and the trial judge's decision stood as the final determination of the matter.

Orders