JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 OCTOBER 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 OCTOBER 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	YAMINE v MAZLOUM
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 601

---

REAL PROPERTY – Caveat – Summary removal – Oral contract for services on a quantum meruit between registered proprietor and caveator – Caveator to perform work to prepare property for sale – Caveat wrongly claiming a freehold estate on the grounds of an implied resulting or constructive trust – Whether any alternative ground for a different estate or interest revealed – Whether caveat would be amended – Caveat removed – Transfer of Land Act 1958, s 90(3).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Stirling	Wyndham Partners Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr A Sandbach	Lennon Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff seeks orders for the removal of a caveat lodged by the first defendant (‘caveator’) over a property at 9 Sherrin Court, Werribee. The plaintiff has been the registered proprietor of that property since 15 January 2013.

The Registrar of Titles is joined as a second defendant but has, by letter, indicated that he does not intend to appear in the proceeding and has no objection to orders sought in the form that the Registrar has specified in his letter.

The property is mortgaged and it appears that the plaintiff told the caveator that he was in default under that mortgage and that the first defendant that the banks had taken steps to enforce its interests. Neither party has produced documentary evidence explaining the bank’s position. It appears that the plaintiff negotiated with the bank to sell the property by private sale in order to maximise his possible return.

The plaintiff and the caveator are known to each other from circumstances described in the affidavits that I need not set out in these reasons. It appears that the plaintiff asked the caveator to assist him to get the property ready for sale.

The caveator described the conversation when this request was made, which is critical to the outcome of this proceeding. He said:

In order to get the property ready for sale, Chris begged me to help him finish it and get it in a state in which it could be sold. He used words to the effect "Please help me finish the house and get it ready for auction. I want you to stay and help me clean my house. I don't want to end up on the street". I told him words to the effect that there is a lot of work to do and asked him if he had any money to do the work. Chris told me that he didn't. I asked him how he would pay me as cleaning out the property would be a full‑time significant job.
I told Chris…

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 Yamine v Mazloum

Details

AGLC: Yamine v Mazloum [2017] VSC 601
Case: [2017] VSC 601
Decision Date: 3 OCTOBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yamine v Mazloum involved a dispute concerning a caveat lodged over a property in Melbourne. The caveator, Yamine, claimed an interest in the property on the basis of an alleged oral contract with the registered proprietor, Mazloum, for services rendered in preparing the property for sale. The relationship between the two was complex, with Yamine undertaking work on the property under the expectation of compensation or an interest in the property. However, the caveat lodged by Yamine incorrectly asserted a claim to a freehold estate, arguing that this was based on an implied resulting or constructive trust. The central issue before the court was whether there was any evidence to support an alternative claim for a different estate or interest, and if so, whether the caveat should be amended to reflect this.

The court examined the evidence presented and the nature of the relationship between the parties. It was established that while there was an expectation of compensation or an interest in the property, there was no clear agreement or understanding that Yamine would receive anything more than a quantum meruit for the services provided. The court found that the basis for the caveat was misconceived, as the claim for a freehold estate was not supported by the evidence of the relationship or the terms of any agreement. Consequently, the court ruled that the caveat should be removed, as there was no valid ground for it under the Transfer of Land Act 1958, section 90(3).

In its reasoning, the court highlighted the importance of clarity in legal claims and the necessity for caveators to accurately assert their interests. The court emphasised that the caveat system is not a mechanism for pursuing unestablished claims or speculative interests. It was determined that Yamine's claim did not meet the criteria for maintaining a caveat, and therefore, the caveat was rightly removed. The court's decision underscored the principle that legal claims must be grounded in clear and demonstrable evidence, and that the caveat system should be used appropriately to protect legitimate interests.

Orders