Pryse v Castleman - [2021] VSC 833

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2021 04203

RAYMOND LESLIE PRYSE	Plaintiff
- and -
COLLEEN GWENETH CASTLEMAN	First Defendant
- and -
THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 December 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 December 2021 (revised)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Pryse v Castleman & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 833

---

PROPERTY – Caveat – Application to remove caveat – Application to remove caveat allowed – s 90 (3) Transfer of Land Act 1958 – Re Mahoney [2015] VSC 600 – Chan v Liu [2020] VSCA 28 – Lee v Yap [2021] VSCA 297.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T R Messer, with Mr T Greenway	Maloney Anderson Legal
For the First Defendant	Ms C H Sparke QC, with Mr J F Perry	J. N. Zigouras & Co. Lawyers
No appearance for the Second Defendant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The land............................................................................................................................................... 1

Family members................................................................................................................................. 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

Evidence............................................................................................................................................... 5

Applicable principles........................................................................................................................ 5

Is there a serious question to be tried?.......................................................................................... 8

Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 11

Does the balance of convenience favour maintenance of the caveat?................................... 16

Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 17

HER HONOUR:

This is a dispute between brother and sister regarding the transfer of farming land from their late mother to the brother. On 7 October 2021, the brother entered into a contract to sell the land to relatives. About two weeks later, his sister caused a caveat to be registered on the land. Settlement is tomorrow, 15 December 2021. The brother seeks to remove the caveat. I will make orders removing the caveat. Reasons follow.

The land

The land in dispute is contiguous farming land in Walpeup, Victoria. It is more particularly described in Certificates of Title Volume 08761 Folio 834 (‘Lot 52’) and Volume 08761 Folio 930 (‘Lot 53’). A caveat is registered on both titles.[1] For convenience, I shall refer to the properties together as the ‘caveat properties’.
[1]Caveat AU933994A on both Lot 52 and Lot 53.

To complete the picture, reference must also be made to other land that was previously part of the family farm. It is more particularly described in Certificates of Title Volume 08454 Folio 622 (‘Lot 57’) and Volume 09011 Folio 973 (‘Lot 20’). This land is not the subject of these proceedings. However, the parties made reference to it, as will be discussed below.

Family members

The plaintiff, Raymond Pryse, is one of three siblings. His sisters are Lorna Wolfe and the first defendant, Colleen Castleman. Their parents are Gweneth and Harold Pryse, both deceased. Their maternal grandparents are the late Selena and Richard Mead. To avoid confusion, I shall refer to the family members by their first names.

Background

All three generations lived together on the family farm in two houses.

Colleen left the family farm around 1970, shortly after she finished school. She married Geoff Castleman.

Raymond began working on the family farm from…

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 Pryse v Castleman

Details

AGLC: Pryse v Castleman [2021] VSC 833
Case: [2021] VSC 833
Decision Date: 14 December 2021 (revised)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pryse v Castleman, the parties involved in the dispute were Pryse, the applicant, and Castleman, the caveator. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Pryse sought to have a caveat lodged by Castleman removed. The underlying dispute concerned a property transaction where Castleman had lodged a caveat to protect their interest in the property, and Pryse sought to remove the caveat to proceed with the sale. The central legal issue was whether the conditions stipulated in section 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 were met, which would justify the removal of the caveat.

The court considered the legal principles outlined in previous cases such as Re Mahoney [2015] VSC 600, Chan v Liu [2020] VSCA 28, and Lee v Yap [2021] VSCA 297. These cases provided guidance on the circumstances under which a caveat may be removed. The court examined whether Castleman had a real and substantial interest in the property and if the balance of convenience favoured Pryse. Additionally, the court considered whether Castleman had a reasonable cause of action and if there were any other relevant factors that would influence the decision.

Upon reviewing the evidence and applying the legal principles, the court determined that the conditions for removing the caveat were satisfied. Castleman did not have a real and substantial interest in the property, and the balance of convenience favoured Pryse. The court also found that Castleman's claim was not reasonable, and there were no other factors that would prevent the removal of the caveat. Consequently, the application to remove the caveat was allowed, and the court ordered the caveat to be removed from the property register.

Orders