2025/00320135
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 23/10/25 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 414.6 KB) |
| 15/12/25 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 428.6 KB) |
| 30/1/26 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 323.2 KB) |
| 30/1/26 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 330.5 KB) |
| 9/2/26 | Appellant |
Certification for Publication (PDF, 53.9 KB) |
EQUITY – Mr Paul Penya, and his former wife Ms Therese Penya, are the registered proprietors of a property in Eastlakes as tenants in common – they purchased the property in October 1984, and lived there together with their daughter Ms Paula-Marie Penya until 1995 when Paul moved out of the property following the breakdown of the marriage between himself and Therese – Therese and Paula-Marie continued living in the property – in July 2004, Paula-Marie married Mr Andrea Pizzimento, who then moved into the property with Therese and Paula-Marie – Andrea and Paula-Marie continued living in the property with Therese after the birth of their children in August 2013 and November 2014 – Paul and Therese are the directors and shareholders of Matra Real Estate Pty Limited, which operated a real estate business in Matraville at all times relevant to these proceedings – Paul was the principal licensee in charge – Paula-Marie worked in the business from March 1996 until its rent roll was sold in 2018 – on 1 February 2023, Paul commenced proceeding seeking an order pursuant to s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) for the appointment of trustees for the sale of the Eastlakes property (the s 66G proceedings) – on 4 May 2023, Paula-Marie commenced proceeding against Paul and Therese claiming that her parents had promised to give her the Eastlakes property and the Matra Real Estate business in return for her working in the business without being paid a wage – the primary judge determined that Paula-Marie was not entitled to the relief claimed in the trust proceedings, and that orders should be made under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act for the appointment of trustees for sale of the Eastlakes property – whether the primary judge made various errors in relation to proprietary estoppel (clear and unequivocal promise, reliance and detriment) – whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that there was a common intention constructive trust – whether the primary judge applied inconsistent standards in assessing the credibility of the evidence of Paula-Marie, Therese and Andrea, as compared with assessing the credibility of the evidence of Paul and Irene – whether the primary judge erred in making costs orders by reason of errors in the primary judgment.
Last updated: