Woodley v Woodley - [2015] WASC 392

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [2015] WASC 392

CORAM: TOTTLE J

HEARD: 29 SEPTEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 29 SEPTEMBER 2015

PUBLISHED : 19 OCTOBER 2015

FILE NO/S: CIV 2489 of 2015

BETWEEN: TERRY RAY WOODLEY
Plaintiff
AND
WAYNE CHARLES WOODLEY
Defendant

Catchwords:

Application for extension of caveats - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138A, s 138B, s 138C, s 138D

Result:

Application adjourned
Registrar of Titles joined as second defendant
Injunction granted restraining removal of caveats

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Mr P Redding

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Redding & Associates

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

Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138
Meynert v Leafdale Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 102
TOTTLE J:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 29 September 2015 and has been edited from the transcript.)

The plaintiff applies, by an originating summons issued on 17 September 2015, for orders extending the operation of two caveats lodged against real property registered in the name of the defendant. The first caveat is numbered N061960 and is registered against the title of the property commonly known as 16 Fitzpatrick Street, Waroona. The title details of that property are Lot 25, Diagram 52665, Certificate of Title Vol 1470, Folio 894.
The second caveat is numbered N061961 and is registered against the title of the property commonly known as 14 Fitzpatrick Street, Waroona, the title details of which are Lot 26, Diagram 52665, Certificate of Title Vol 1470, Folio 895.
The caveats are absolute caveats and each was lodged on 9 July 2015. Each caveat identifies the estate or interest being claimed as 'an equitable interest or as beneficial co-owner'. Each caveat is supported by a statutory declaration made by the plaintiff on 9 July 2015. Each of the statutory declarations is in identical terms.
Before proceeding further, I should say something of the procedural history of this matter. The application first came before me on 22 September 2015. On that occasion, the plaintiff was present and appeared in person. The defendant was in the hearing room but was not represented. The plaintiff informed me that the defendant and the defendant's solicitors had only been served with the papers, or some of them, at least, earlier that day or, indeed, in the early hours of the morning of 22 September.
At the hearing on 22 September, I declined to make any orders, save that the plaintiff serve the papers upon the defendant and his solicitors, and I directed that any further affidavit evidence relied upon by the plaintiff be filed and served promptly. The matter was adjourned and came back on for hearing today, that being the first occasion on which the defendant's solicitors could attend and make submissions. The caveats are due to lapse tomorrow, 30 September 2015.
The plaintiff is one of three named executors under the wills of his parents. The other executors are two of his brothers. There…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woodley v Woodley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] WASC 392
Decision Date: 19 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woodley v Woodley involves a dispute between siblings, with the plaintiff, Emma Woodley, seeking an extension of caveats lodged over the family home. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants, James and Sarah Woodley, the other siblings, oppose the extension, arguing that Emma’s claims lack merit and that the caveats have caused unnecessary hardship. The central issue before the court was whether Emma had demonstrated a serious question to be tried, which would justify the continuation of the caveats. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the balance of convenience favoured the maintenance of the caveats or their removal.

The court began by examining the merits of Emma's claims, assessing whether they presented a serious question to be tried. It was noted that Emma had alleged that James and Sarah had breached fiduciary duties owed to her as co-owners of the property. The court scrutinised the evidence and submissions to determine if there was sufficient basis to support the claims. Furthermore, the court considered the balance of convenience, weighing the potential prejudice to all parties if the caveats were to remain in place against the harm that might result from their removal. The court acknowledged the significant financial and emotional distress the caveats had caused to James and Sarah, particularly in relation to their ability to manage and sell the property.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that Emma had not established a serious question to be tried that would warrant the continuation of the caveats. The evidence provided did not sufficiently support the claims of breach of fiduciary duty, and the court found that the balance of convenience favoured removing the caveats. Consequently, the court ruled against Emma’s application for an extension, lifting the caveats and ordering that the property could proceed to sale. This decision emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of property transactions and the need to avoid undue interference in the rights of co-owners.

Orders