LYNNE MARGARET WALTERS	Plaintiff
v
JANE ELIZABETH PERTON (who is sued as trustee of the Port Eagle Investment Trust and as Executrix of the Will and Trustee of the Estate of DONALD GRAEME WARRING, deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Derham AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 September 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 November 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Walters v Perton (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 733

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for trial of separate questions pursuant to r 47.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) – Murphy v State of Victoria & Anor [2014] VSCA 238 – Monty Financial Services Ltd v Delmo [1996] 1 VR 65 – Hoh v Ying Mui Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 203.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr RM Garratt QC with him Mr RH Miller	Nedovic Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr P Bick QC with him Mr D Farrands	Darrer Muir Fleiter Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

The three proceedings....................................................................................................................... 2

Part IV proceeding............................................................................................................................. 2

Eviction proceeding........................................................................................................................... 5

TEP proceeding................................................................................................................................ 10

Applicable law.................................................................................................................................. 22

Submissions and consideration.................................................................................................... 26

Walters’ submissions.................................................................................................................. 26
First question...................................................................................................................... 27
Second question................................................................................................................. 30
Third question.................................................................................................................... 31

Perton’s submissions.................................................................................................................. 31
First question...................................................................................................................... 33
Second question................................................................................................................. 36
Third question.................................................................................................................... 37

Consideration.............................................................................................................................. 38
First question............................................................................................................................... 41
Second question.......................................................................................................................... 43
Third question............................................................................................................................. 44

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 46

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff (Walters) applies for the trial of separate questions pursuant to r 47.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (Rules). The effect of the separate questions sought to be tried is as follows:

(a) pursuant to s 34 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) (A&P Act) and s 48 of the Trustee Act 1958 (Vic), the defendant (Perton) be removed as executor of the Will and Trustee of the Estate of Donald Graeme Warring (deceased) and that David Hughes, Australian legal practitioner of Lawson Hughes, Peter Walsh, Solicitors, be appointed in her stead as administrator and trustee (first question);

(b) a declaration that the deceased was the beneficial owner of 53,401 ordinary shares in the capital of Mobile Communication Systems Pty Ltd (MCS), immediately before the registration on or about 29 June 2015 with the Australian Securities and Exchange Commission (ASIC) of a record showing (second question):

(i) the cancellation of all the deceased’s ordinary shares in MCS without payment; and

(ii) the cancellation of all but 100 ordinary shares in the name of Perton in MCS;

(iii) resulting in Perton being recorded as a the sole…

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 Walters v Perton (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Walters v Perton (No 3) [2019] VSC 733
Case: [2019] VSC 733
Decision Date: 12 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Walters v Perton (No 3), the parties involved are Walters, the plaintiff, and Perton, the defendant. The nature of the dispute pertains to an application for the trial of separate questions under rule 47.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff seeks to bifurcate the issues in the case, aiming to determine certain legal questions separately from the factual disputes.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the application for the trial of separate questions should be granted, considering the principles set out in Murphy v State of Victoria & Anor [2014] VSCA 238. The court also had to consider whether the criteria outlined in Monty Financial Services Ltd v Delmo [1996] 1 VR 65 were satisfied. Additionally, the court needed to assess the relevance of Hoh v Ying Mui Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 203 in the context of the application.

In examining the application, the court considered the necessity and efficiency of separating the legal and factual issues. It weighed the principles of justice and the potential benefits of a streamlined trial process. The court concluded that the application should not be granted, as the circumstances did not warrant bifurcation. The court found that the proposed separation of issues would not sufficiently expedite the proceedings or ensure a just outcome. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Orders