Young v Young

Case [2011] VSC 188


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL LIST

No. 1743 of 2011

IN THE MATTER OF an application pursuant to s 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act

MICHAEL JOHN YOUNG

Plaintiff

v
DONNA LOUISE YOUNG
and
REGISTRAR OF TITLES

First Defendant

Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:

ROBSON J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

4 May 2011

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

5 May 2011

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Young v Young

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2011] VSC 188

---

PROPERTY – Transfer of Land Act 1958 – application to remove caveat – constructive trust – whether caveatable interest – whether caveat defective – whether caveator met onus of establishing serious claim to be tried - balance of convenience – caveat removed on conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr Nichol Chembri & Co
For the Defendant In person

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

  1. By an Originating Motion dated 12 April 2011, Mr Michael Young applies under s 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 seeking an order that his wife Mrs Donna Young withdraw and remove a caveat over the land registered in his name contained in Certificate of Title Volume 09169, folio 960, being the property at 9 Sheringham Drive, Werribee.

  1. Mrs Young’s caveat is dated 13 January 2011.  The estate or interest claimed is “an estate in fee simple”.  The grounds of the claim are “whereby the registered proprietor holds his/her interest as trustee for the caveator pursuant to a constructive trust”.

  1. The application to remove the caveat is made under s 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act.  That provides:

“(3)  Any person who is adversely affected by any such caveat may bring proceedings in a court against the caveator for the removal of the caveat and the court may make such order as the court thinks fit.”

THE EVIDENCE

  1. Mr Young’s application is supported by his affidavit of 24 April.  He deposes that Mrs Young and he were in a de facto relationship from 1985 to 2002.  He says that following their separation in 2002, they settled the financial matters between them pursuant to a deed of agreement and release.  That document is dated 6 January 2003.

  1. Mr Young says he recommenced his relationship with Mrs Young a short time after executing the deed of agreement and release, and that he and Mrs Young were subsequently married in Perth, Western Australia, on 6 June 2003.  He says they separated on 25 December 2008 and have lived separately and apart ever since.

  1. Mr Young says that on 13 August 2009, he purchased the property at 9 Sheringham Drive, Werribee for $260,000.  He says that in order to pay the deposit for the purchase of the property, he borrowed $26,000 from his parents.  He says the loan amount was paid to him by way of a cash payment of $6,000 on 23 February 2009 and two electronic transfers to his Bankwest account on 4 May 2009 of $5,000 and…

Continue reading Young v Young

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Young v Young [2011] VSC 188
Case
[2011] VSC 188
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Young v Young was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff, Young, sought an order to remove a caveat lodged by the defendant, Young, against a property at 9 Sheringham Drive, Werribee. The property was subject to a contract of sale between the plaintiff and Skye Roxanne Crouch, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the contract and remove the caveat to facilitate the sale. The defendant lodged a caveat claiming an interest in the property due to a constructive trust, asserting that the plaintiff held the property on trust for both parties.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant had a caveatable interest in the property, whether the caveat was defective, and if the defendant had met the onus of establishing a serious question to be tried. Additionally, the court needed to consider the balance of convenience and whether the caveat should be removed on certain conditions.

The court found that the defendant's claim of a constructive trust was a serious question to be tried, and therefore, the caveatable interest requirement was satisfied. However, the caveat was considered defective as it did not specify the nature and particulars of the interest claimed. Despite this, the court acknowledged the balance of convenience favoured the removal of the caveat on specific conditions to enable the contract of sale to proceed. The court ordered the removal of the caveat on the conditions set out in the orders, including holding the proceeds of the sale in escrow until the Family Court application was determined.

The final orders included the preparation and execution of a withdrawal of caveat, holding the proceeds of the sale in escrow, and reserving liberty to apply for further orders. The plaintiff was also directed to pay the costs of the defendant, including travel expenses.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The plaintiff by his solicitors, Schembri & Co Lawyers, forthwith prepare a withdrawal of caveat no AH735174J and present it to the first defendant

(2) The first defendant forthwith execute the said withdrawal of caveat no AH735174J and forthwith deliver the said executed withdrawal of caveat to the solicitors for the plaintiff ;

(3) The solicitors for the plaintiff hold the said withdrawal of caveat in escrow pending the settlement of the contract for the sale of the property situated and known as 9 Sheringham Drive, Werribee in the State of Victoria and being the land more particularly describe in certificate of title volume 09169 folio 960 between the plaintiff and Skye Roxanne Crouch and on settlement of the said contract deliver the said withdrawal to the purchaser or her agents but otherwise not lodge the withdrawal with the Registrar of Titles;

(4) The plaintiff cause to be lodged in the trust account of his solicitors the proceeds of settlement of the said contract of sale save for all moneys due to the first mortgagee, Bankwest, and the amounts owing for conveyancing, advertising and commission to Sargeant’s Conveyancing and Property Transfers Specialists and First National Real Estate, Westwood;

(5) The plaintiff’s said solicitors shall hold and retain the said moneys pending the hearing and determination of the Family Court application dated 28 April 2011 filed by the first defendant against the plaintiff or further order of this court;

(6) Liberty to apply be reserved on 24 hours notice to the other party; and

(7) The plaintiff pay the costs of the first defendant of this application including the costs and expenses of her travelling from Perth to Melbourne and from Melbourne to Perth for the purpose of this hearing, such costs to be taxed, unless agreed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.