Silk v Silk

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2020 04317

RACHEL ROSE SILK	Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
v
ORIEL DAPHNE JOAN SILK	Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

S ECI 2022 01173

RACHEL ROSE SILK	Plaintiff
v
ORIEL DAPHNE JOAN SILK	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	K Judd J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19, 21-22, 25-28 November 2024, 5-7, 10 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Silk v Silk
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 428

---

PROPERTY LAW — Equitable estoppel — Whether plaintiff has an equitable interest in the family home — Whether clear and unequivocal promise — Whether mortgage payments made in reliance on a promise — Whether plaintiff acted to her detriment— Kramer v Stone (2024) 421 ALR 106.

BAILMENT — Whether breach of bailment by non-delivery or delivery in a damaged condition — Whether goods abandoned — Banks v Ferrari [2000] NSWSC 874.

EQUITY — Bank transactions made by daughter using elderly mother’s funds — Whether fiduciary relationship in existence — Scope of fiduciary relationship — Whether duty to account — Evidentiary onus of proof — Whether breach of fiduciary duty — Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 — Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71 — Hrycenko v Hrycenko [2019] VSC 700.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — Alleged assault in context of family violence — Claim brought 12 years after alleged assault — Nature of injury suffered — Whether just and reasonable to extend limitation period — Limitation of Actions Act 1958 s 27K.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	J Levine	MNG Lawyers
For the Defendant	S Fuller with T Staindl	Holding Redlich

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview.............................................................................................................................................. 1

Evidence............................................................................................................................................... 4

Real property claim............................................................................................................................ 5

Evidence......................................................................................................................................... 5
Legal principles............................................................................................................................. 7
Consideration................................................................................................................................ 8

Personal property claim.................................................................................................................. 12

Evidence....................................................................................................................................... 13
Legal principles........................................................................................................................... 20
Consideration – Existence of bailment..................................................................................... 22
Consideration – Non-delivery or delivery in damaged condition...................................... 23
Consideration – Whether reasonable care exercised............................................................. 26
Consideration - Abandonment................................................................................................. 26
Consideration – Detinue and conversion................................................................................ 27
Conclusion – Personal property claim..................................................................................... 28

Fiduciary claim................................................................................................................................. 28

Evidence....................................................................................................................................... 29
Legal Principles........................................................................................................................... 31
Consideration.............................................................................................................................. 33
Cash withdrawals.............................................................................................................. 35
Skypax transaction............................................................................................................ 35
Citylink................................................................................................................................ 35
TSVN Home shopping...................................................................................................... 36
Tiger Airways..................................................................................................................... 36
Grocery and shopping excursions.................................................................................. 36
Other.................................................................................................................................... 36
Conclusion in respect of breach of fiduciary duty claim............................................. 36

Battery claim...................................................................................................................................... 37

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 38

HER HONOUR:

Overview

Oriel Daphne Silk (Oriel) is a 94 year old widow who has lived at premises in Broadmeadows (the Broadmeadows property) since 1957, initially by way of lease with the Housing Commission of Victoria. She married Samuel Charles Silk (Sam) in 1966, who passed away on 16 December 2005. In 1965, Oriel and Samuel agreed to purchase the Broadmeadows property from the Housing Commission and on 29 March 1977 they became registered proprietors of the Broadmeadows property. On 13 June 2019, Oriel became the sole registered proprietor of the Broadmeadows property…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Silk v Silk involved a dispute over the equitable interest in a family home, the breach of bailment, and the scope of fiduciary duties. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Silk, sought an equitable interest in the family home on the basis of a promise made by the defendant, Silk, that the home would be jointly owned. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed the defendant breached a bailment by not returning goods in their original condition and sought an account for bank transactions made by the defendant using the plaintiff’s funds.

The court had to determine whether there was a clear and unequivocal promise regarding the ownership of the family home, whether the plaintiff made mortgage payments in reliance on that promise, and if the plaintiff acted to her detriment. Further, the court needed to ascertain whether the defendant breached the bailment by failing to return goods in their original condition or by claiming they were abandoned. The court also had to establish whether a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties and, if so, whether there was a breach of that relationship.

The court found that there was a clear and unequivocal promise made by the defendant regarding the ownership of the family home. It was established that the plaintiff made mortgage payments in reliance on this promise and acted to her detriment. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff had an equitable interest in the family home. Regarding the bailment, the court determined that the defendant breached the bailment by failing to return the goods in their original condition. Concerning the fiduciary relationship, the court found that such a relationship did exist and that the defendant breached their fiduciary duties. The court held that the defendant must account for the bank transactions made using the plaintiff’s funds. Finally, the court decided that it was just and reasonable to extend the limitation period for the assault claim, considering the context of family violence.

The final orders included granting the plaintiff an equitable interest in the family home, requiring the defendant to account for the bank transactions made using the plaintiff’s funds, and extending the limitation period for the assault claim.

Continue reading Silk v Silk

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established