• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: Terence Wilson-Winship (the plaintiff) is the father of Justin Wilson-Winship (the defendant). The plaintiff alleges that in May 2021, he purchased a property at Concord in the defendant’s name pursuant to an arrangement or agreement made between them. The plaintiff provided almost all of the purchase price of $2,310.000. The plaintiff maintains that he purchased the property on the condition that the defendant would hold the legal title on trust for him and after his death on trust for the defendant’s children. It was a further term of this arrangement that the plaintiff and the defendant would live in the property, that the defendant would maintain it and that the defendant would provide care for the plaintiff in his old age.

2. The plaintiff alleges that soon thereafter, his relationship with the defendant deteriorated and that the defendant ceased to abide by the terms of the arrangement. As the result of his declining health, the plaintiff ceased to reside at the property and relocated to an aged care facility. The plaintiff faces issues in these circumstances with the cost of his assisted living. Because he was concerned about the likelihood that the defendant will not, or may not, uphold the terms of the arrangement, he lodged a caveat against the title to the property and commenced these proceedings. The plaintiff has sought a declaration that the defendant holds the property on trust for him and his grandchildren or in the alternative the property be transferred to him or to the mother of his grandchildren on trust for them. The plaintiff seeks in the further alternative an order for judicial sale of the property with the net proceeds being paid to him to be held on trust for himself and his grandchildren.

3. The defendant, who is unrepresented, filed a defence on 24 September 2025. He was then and is currently without legal representation. For presently relevant purposes it is sufficient to note that the defendant opposes the relief that the plaintiff seeks.

4. In the proceedings so far, the defendant has failed to appear when the matter has come before the Court for mentions or directions. Despite the terms of his defence and the making of orders for the filing of evidence, the defendant has so far not done so. In those circumstances, the plaintiff applied for the matter to be dealt with on 21 August 2026, either in the absence of the defendant if he did not appear or in his presence if he did.

5. In the events that occurred, the defendant appeared on 21 August 2026, although later than the appointed time for the commencement of the hearing. It quickly became apparent that he was ill-equipped to represent himself or somehow to conduct a defence of the case in a way that would do justice to his position.

6. I indicated to Mr Allen of counsel who appeared for the plaintiff and to the defendant that I felt considerable unease proceeding with what would have been a final hearing in these circumstances. Mr Allen quite properly acknowledged that it was preferable that the defendant be legally assisted and embraced my view that the defendant ought in the circumstances be referred to the Registrar for referral thereafter to the New South Wales Bar Association or the Law Society of New South Wales for referral to a barrister or solicitor in accordance with the Court’s pro bono legal assistance scheme. The defendant confirmed upon inquiry from me that he would embrace that course and that he had no intention of taking any steps either to apply for the withdrawal of the plaintiff’s caveat or otherwise to alter the status quo.

7. I am satisfied, having regard to the defendant’s means, his capacity to obtain legal assistance outside the scheme, and the nature and complexity of the proceedings, that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that I make an order referring the defendant to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance.

8. Mr Allen sought an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of 21 August 2026.

9. In these circumstances I will make the following orders:

10. Adjourn the proceedings to 9 October 2026 for mention before me.

11. Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of 21 August 2026.

12. Order pursuant to UCPR 7.36 that the defendant be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance with respect to:

(a) advice in relation to the proceedings; (b) representation on 9 October 2026, directions hearing, interlocutory or final hearing, arbitration or mediation; (c) drafting or settling documents, including affidavits, to be filed or used in the proceedings; and (d) representation generally in the conduct of the proceedings or of part of the proceedings.

4. Grant liberty to apply on 2 days’ notice.

**********