Scutti v Timperio - [2025] WASC 381

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   SCUTTI -v- TIMPERIO [2025] WASC 381
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   26 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED          :   26 AUGUST 2025
PUBLISHED           :   11 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2021 of 2024
BETWEEN:   GIUSEPPE ALESSANDRO SCUTTI
First Plaintiff
PAOLA SCUTTI
Second Plaintiff
AND
SILVANA ROSA TIMPERIO
First Defendant
CARMELA SCUTTI
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Application for judgment on admissions - O 30 r 3 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971(WA) - The proper exercise of discretion - Whether dispute hypothetical - Application for declaratory relief - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 18, r 16, O 30 r 3

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 25(6)

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiffs and declaratory relief in the terms sought

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr S R Sirett
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr S R Sirett
First Defendant	:	Mr P G McGowan
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Thomson Geer - Perth
Second Plaintiff	:	Thomson Geer - Perth
First Defendant	:	Rowley Legal
Second Defendant	:	Blatchfords

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

Acciona Industrial Australia Pty Ltd v Kwinana WTE Project Co Pty Ltd [2022] WASC 380
Halford v Halford [No 2] [2018] WASC 303
Moon v Mun [2013] NSWCA 217

SOLOMON J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 26 August 2025 and has been edited from the transcript)

Background

This is an application brought by chamber summons dated 3 February 2025. The plaintiffs' application is made under O 30 r 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court1971 (WA) for judgment to be entered on grounds of admissions made in the first defendant's amended defence dated 13 November 2024 (Amended Defence). The plaintiffs seek a declaration in the following terms:[1]
Of the sum of $2,750,000.00 paid by the Commissioner of Main Roads for 614 Wanneroo Road, Pearsall, Western Australia:
(a)the plaintiffs are entitled to receive, and have received the sum of $1,237,500.00;
(b)Antonio Giuseppe Scutti was entitled to receive the sum of $962,500.00 and has received the sum of $396,341.50;
(c)the estate of Antonio Giuseppe Scutti is entitled to receive a further sum of $566,158.50; and
(d)the second defendant is entitled to retain the sum of $550,000.00.
[1] Chamber Summons, 3 February 2025, 2.
The background to the matter may be summarised in this way. The first plaintiff and the first defendant are brother and sister. They are two of the four children of their mother, the second defendant. The second defendant is a person not capable of managing her own affairs. Orders were made by a registrar to that effect in these proceedings, but in any event, a notice to abide was filed on behalf of the second defendant.[2] The second plaintiff is the first plaintiff's wife.
[2] Orders Registrar Nelson, 28 November 2024.
Antonio Giuseppe Scutti (Antonio) was another brother, and son to the second defendant. Antonio passed away in March 2024.…

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 Scutti v Timperio

Details

AGLC: Scutti v Timperio [2025] WASC 381
Case: [2025] WASC 381
Decision Date: 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Scutti, sought an order from the Supreme Court of Western Australia for judgment on admissions under Order 30 Rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971. The dispute arose from an agreement between the parties where Timperio was to provide certain services to Scutti in exchange for payment. The applicants sought to enforce this agreement by having the court make a judgment based on the admissions made by Timperio in previous correspondence. The court had to determine whether it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to grant the application under the Rules and whether the dispute was hypothetical.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to grant judgment on admissions under the Rules. The court had to consider the nature of the admissions and whether they were sufficient to warrant judgment. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the dispute was hypothetical, as the outcome of the declaratory relief sought by the applicants hinged on the specific facts of the case. The court had to weigh these considerations to determine whether it was appropriate to exercise its discretion in this case.

The court found that the applicants had made sufficient admissions for judgment to be entered under the Rules. However, the court also found that the dispute was not hypothetical as it turned on the specific facts of the case. The court held that the applicants' application for declaratory relief was dependent on the specific circumstances of the agreement between the parties. As such, the court found that it was not appropriate to exercise its discretion to grant judgment on admissions in this case. The court also found that the dispute was not hypothetical and that the applicants' application for declaratory relief would need to be determined on its own facts.

The court dismissed the application for judgment on admissions. The court found that the dispute was not hypothetical and that the applicants' application for declaratory relief would need to be determined on its own facts. The court did not grant any relief to the applicants.

Orders