Legal Research
Cases
Roy v Lagona

Roy v Lagona

Case [2010] VSC 250 10 June 2010

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

No. 4896 of 2006

NORMAN FRANCIS ROY AND WALLACE JOHN ROY (who sue as the administrators of the unadministered estate of WALLACE ROY, deceased)	Plaintiffs
v
MICHAEL LAGONA	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HANSEN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	1-3, 6 and 7 April 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 June 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Roy v Lagona
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 250

---

REAL PROPERTY – Residential property – Adverse possession – Successive occupiers – Continuity – Gaps in occupation – Damages/Mesne profits – Improvements undertaken by last possessor claiming adverse possession – Whether unjust enrichment – Restitution.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr R B Phillips	Tolhurst Druce & Emmerson
For the Defendant	Mr M J Corrigan	Rose Mary Brondolino & Co

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Roy family and the property.................................................................................................... 1

The Lagona family............................................................................................................................. 3

Issues.................................................................................................................................................... 5

Statement of claim................................................................................................................... 5
Defence..................................................................................................................................... 5
Reply....................................................................................................................................... 10
Counterclaim......................................................................................................................... 11
Defence to counterclaim....................................................................................................... 12

Adverse possession – the principles............................................................................................ 12

The defence and counterclaim – principles................................................................................ 18

Evidence and witnesses – an overview........................................................................................ 18

Occupation of the property by Gloria Clare Hearse and her relationship to Eileen Roy.. 23

Facts......................................................................................................................................... 23
Submissions............................................................................................................................. 25
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 26

Subsequent occupation................................................................................................................... 27

Occupation by Cerra........................................................................................................................ 28

Facts......................................................................................................................................... 28
Submissions............................................................................................................................. 43
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 45

The Hearse family and their attitude to having an interest in the property........................ 48

Facts......................................................................................................................................... 49
Submissions............................................................................................................................. 55
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 56

Squatters............................................................................................................................................ 58

The plaintiffs and the property..................................................................................................... 59

Further facts....................................................................................................................................... 60

Scope of the works and costs......................................................................................................... 77

Lorich....................................................................................................................................... 80
Arends...................................................................................................................................... 84
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 85

The rental value and market value............................................................................................... 87

Facts......................................................................................................................................... 87
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 91

Defence and counterclaim.............................................................................................................. 91

Issues........................................................................................................................................ 91
Defendant’s submissions on the law........................................................................................ 92
(a)       Money paid by mistake................................................................................................ 92
(b)       Mistaken provision of goods and services.................................................................... 92
(c)       Mistaken improvements to land.................................................................................. 93
(d)       Incontrovertible benefit.............................................................................................. 101
Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 102
The mistake case..................................................................................................................... 102
(a)       No person had any interest legal or equitable in the property................................... 102
(b)       Any persons who had an interest in the property were not intending to pursue their rights (if any) to take possession of the property.................................................................................. 103
(c)       Improvements made to the property would be to the defendant’s benefit and not for the            financial gain of others............................................................................................... 103
(d)       The defendant might peaceably enjoy the property for so long as he desired............ 103
The representation case.......................................................................................................... 105
The unjust enrichment case................................................................................................... 106

The plaintiffs’ claim for mesne profits/damages..................................................................... 108

Overall conclusion......................................................................................................................... 110

HIS HONOUR:

In this proceeding the plaintiffs, Norman Francis Roy (“Norman Roy”) and Wallace John Roy (“Wallace Roy”) claim possession of a property at 38 Clauscen Street, North Fitzroy, being the land more particularly described in certificate of title volume 10879 folio 528 (“the property”), and damages or mesne profits in respect of the defendant’s occupation of the property. The property has front and rear boundaries of 5.03 metres and 4.80 metres respectively to a depth of 32.004 metres. It is a relatively flat…

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 Roy v Lagona

Details

AGLC: Roy v Lagona [2010] VSC 250
Case: [2010] VSC 250
Decision Date: 10 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roy v Lagona, the dispute centred around the ownership of a residential property located in Melbourne. The plaintiff, Roy, claimed ownership of the property through adverse possession, asserting that he had been in continuous occupation for the requisite statutory period. The defendant, Lagona, contested the claim, arguing that there were significant gaps in the plaintiff's occupation and that any improvements made to the property by the plaintiff did not warrant a finding of adverse possession. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues revolved around the principles of adverse possession, specifically whether the plaintiff could establish continuous occupation of the property for the statutory period and whether the improvements made by the plaintiff amounted to unjust enrichment. The court was also required to determine the appropriate remedy, if any, in the event the plaintiff's claim for adverse possession was successful.

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for adverse possession was not substantiated. The evidence demonstrated that there were significant gaps in the plaintiff's occupation of the property, which undermined the continuity necessary for a successful adverse possession claim. Furthermore, the court found that the improvements made by the plaintiff did not warrant a finding of adverse possession, as they did not significantly alter the character of the property. Consequently, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim and ordered that he pay the defendant mesne profits for the period during which he had occupied the property without legal right.

Orders