The Court continued caveats over four residential properties where the plaintiff demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding a resulting trust arising from alleged oral agreements and financial contributions to property purchases, notwithstanding the absence of written documentation. The Court dismissed the self-represented defendant's application for security for costs, holding that until the defendant actually engages legal representation she cannot recover costs and therefore has no basis for a security order, applying Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v [name withheld]. The Court left open that different considerations would arise if the plaintiff's visa application failed and the defendant retained lawyers.
The full text is available to signed-in members.