Taylor v Taylor - [2021] VSC 381

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2020 03304

MICHAEL JOHN TAYLOR	Appellant
v
MAXWELL JOHN TAYLOR	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Daly AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Taylor v Taylor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 381

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Appeal pursuant to s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) against a magistrate’s decision to award equitable compensation – Whether new matters raised on appeal for the first time – Whether magistrate bound by previous appeal to calculate damages by reference to notional rental value of property – Whether it was open to the magistrate to calculate damages on an alternative basis – Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577, referred to – Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505, referred to – Harris v Harris [2021] VSCA 138, referred to and applied – Whether magistrate erred in awarding substantial damages where no evidence of notional rental value of the dwelling was adduced – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D P Lloyd	JG Thompson Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr H Kirimof	SMR Legal

HER HONOUR:

Background and introduction

On 20 August 2019, I delivered reasons for judgment (‘August 2019 reasons’) concerning an appeal brought by the appellant (‘Michael’)[1] against a magistrate’s assessment of compensation payable to the respondent (‘Max’) for Michael’s breach of a representation regarding the entitlement of Max to live in relocatable home (‘dwelling’) on a property owned by Michael rent-free for the rest of his life.[2]
[1]For the sake of clarity I have referred to the appellant and respondent by their first names, but do not intend any disrespect to the parties.
[2]Taylor v Taylor [2019] VSC 533.

The August 2019 reasons set out the background facts to this proceeding, as follows:

The appellant, Mr Michael Taylor, is the registered proprietor of a property in Youanmite, a small settlement north east of Shepparton (‘property’). The respondent, Mr Maxwell Taylor, is his father. The respondent was the plaintiff in a proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court at Shepparton, and the appellant was the defendant. The dispute between father and son arose after the appellant in effect evicted the respondent from the property, where the respondent lived in a dwelling moved to the property in 1995 (‘dwelling’). The dwelling had been purchased by the respondent and his late wife with the purpose of relocating it to the property. Prior to that time they lived in suburban Melbourne.
The relationship between the appellant and the respondent soured after the respondent’s late wife (the appellant’s mother) died in 2012, and a friend of the respondent, Ms Lorraine Everett, moved into the dwelling in 2014. Following the respondent’s departure from the property, the respondent brought a claim against the appellant for breach of contract and/or relief on the basis of promissory estoppel.

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 Taylor v Taylor

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Taylor [2021] VSC 381
Case: [2021] VSC 381
Decision Date: 29 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Taylor v Taylor, the matter came before the court as an appeal against a decision of a magistrate who awarded equitable compensation. The dispute between the parties centred around the calculation of damages and whether the magistrate was bound by a previous appeal's methodology for determining the notional rental value of a property.

The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the magistrate was bound by the previous appeal's methodology for calculating damages and whether it was permissible for the magistrate to consider an alternative basis for damages. The court was required to determine if new matters were raised on appeal for the first time and if it was open to the magistrate to calculate damages on an alternative basis, particularly in the absence of evidence regarding the notional rental value of the dwelling.

The court held that the magistrate was not bound by the previous appeal's methodology and that it was open to the magistrate to consider an alternative basis for damages. The court referenced Donis v Donis and Sidhu v Van Dyke to support this position and ultimately applied the reasoning from Harris v Harris to conclude that the magistrate did not err in awarding substantial damages in the absence of evidence of the notional rental value. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the magistrate's decision.

The court's decision confirmed that the magistrate had the discretion to award substantial damages based on the overall circumstances of the case, even without evidence of the notional rental value of the property. The court found no error in the magistrate's approach and upheld the compensation award.

Orders