34 The affidavits which have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the first defendant reveal a substantial dispute between them in relation to the material facts. It is true that the first defendant was able to produce numerous contemporaneous documents which suggest that, at least in several respects, her version of events may be more reliable. Also, the plaintiff's affidavits contained a number of general assertions (to which objection was not made) in relation to matters of importance and, on some material issues, did not contain detailed particulars. However, I am not in a position, on the hearing of this originating summons, to make findings of fact. There must be a trial upon pleadings and cross-examination of the parties and other witnesses. I am not convinced, on the basis of the untested affidavit evidence, that the plaintiff's claim is merely frivolous or vexatious. If the plaintiff's evidence is accepted at a trial, in particular, his evidence in relation to the duration of the de facto relationship, his financial contribution to the repayment of the mortgage registered against the first defendant's Melbourne property, and his contribution of labour and materials to the construction of the home on the Land, then a Court may well be persuaded that it would be unconscionable, in all the circumstances, for the first defendant to deny that he has acquired an equitable interest, to some extent, in her fee simple estate in the Land. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has demonstrated that his claim to a caveatable interest in the Land raises a serious question to be tried.