Vanessa Amorosi looked tense as she touched down in Melbourne on Monday.
The Australian singer, 43, who recently won a court battle against her mother, went for a casual look as she arrived in her home town’s airport.
The This Is Who I Am hitmaker wore a longline varsity-style jumper coloured white with red and blue hems.
She paired the jumper with a white T-shirt that featured a blue ‘A’ print with red, orange and yellow stripes.
Vanessa went with black tights and white sneakers as she made her way through the terminal.
The singer, who relocated to the US in 2017, wore her dark hair down and went for a makeup-free look as she returned Down Under.
The singer looked agitated as she took a phone call after collecting her baggage.
Later, a seemingly shy Vanessa put on black sunglasses and tried hiding behind a male friend as she made her way out of Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport.
Vanessa Amorosi looked tense as she touched down in Melbourne on Monday. Pictured
The Australian singer, 43, who recently won a court battle against her mother, went for a casual look as she arrived in her home town’s airport
It comes after Amorosi appears deadlocked with her mother after suing her over ownership of properties in Australia and the United States after a dramatic falling out.
The Absolutely Everything artist sued Joyleen Robinson for sole ownership of two properties last year almost a decade after the pair fell out over her music earnings.
Ms Robinson had lived in the semirural property in Narre Warren in Melbourne’s southeast since 2001, while the other was Ms Amorosi’s current California home.
Earlier this year, Supreme Court Justice Steven Moore ruled Ms Amorosi was entitled to the properties but would have to pay her mum almost $870,000 in restitution.
The matter returned before the court this month after negotiations between lawyers representing the mother and daughter failed.
Ms Amorosi’s barrister Joel Fetter said the singer was putting forward two of three options for a settlement between the pair following the court ruling.
The This Is Who I Am hitmaker wore a longline varsity-style jumper coloured white with red and blue hems
She paired the jumper with a white T-shirt
Vanessa went with black tights and white sneakers as she made her way through the terminal
In the first, Mr Fetter said Ms Amorosi would allow her mother to stay at the home if she was to be bought out of her stake in the regional property.
Ms Robinson could otherwise elect to sell the property, though the court was told there were disagreements about how and for how much that would occur.
Mr Fetter told the court it was usual for the Real Estate Institute of Victoria to be appointed to find an agent, or else someone with knowledge of selecting real estate agents.
The singer, who relocated to the US in 2017, wore her dark hair down and went for a makeup-free look as she returned Down Under
The singer looked agitated as she took a phone call after collecting her baggage
In the second option, a net payment was to be made by Ms Amorosi to Ms Robinson after monies were exchanged on the order of costs between the pair.
The offer was initially made on the eve of the trial and would see Ms Robinson walking away with $350,000 after paying $300,000 to Ms Amorosi.
Supreme Court Justice Steven Moore questioned whether the order was ‘reasonable’, the basis on which he will make his ruling on costs.
Later, a seemingly shy Vanessa put on black sunglasses and tried hiding behind a male friend as she made her way out of Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport
‘The ultimate proposition which is a net transfer of $350,000, which is vastly less than what Ms Robinson has an entitlement to by order of the court,’ he said.
The court was told the calculations with which the amount to be paid by Ms Robinson was made were flawed, but according to Mr Fetter the net sum still stood.
In his submission, Ms Robinson’s lawyer, Daniel Harrison, also disputed how the figure was calculated and that it had no bearing on the final offer.
It comes after Amorosi appears deadlocked with her mother after suing her over ownership of properties in Australia and the United States after a dramatic falling out
The Absolutely Everything artist sued Joyleen Robinson for sole ownership of two properties last year almost a decade after the pair fell out over her music earnings
‘It is a serious matter, and I don’t suggest there was any intentional or recklessness in the stating of the figure of $300,000, but it was a gross error,’ he said.
‘It was a profound mistake and my learned friend can’t be heard to say, or the plaintiff can’t be heard to say, look, the end justifies the means.’
Ms Amorosi launched legal action in March 2021 seeking sole ownership of a trust that listed both women as owners.
The singer claimed the properties were bought using her ownership and that her mother had been ‘very generous’ with the millions of dollars she earnt.
‘She’s the party that earned all the money to buy it, she’s the party that, obviously, with that new-found wealth, would want to buy a house for herself,’ Mr Farrer said.
Ms Robinson had lived in the semirural property in Narre Warren in Melbourne ‘s southeast since 2001, while the other was Ms Amorosi’s current California home
‘And, she’s the party that acted consistently over the subsequent years, with the position that the house was hers.
‘So, we say that in this offer, wherein Ms Amorosi says you can have half the house, it’s a 5050, that was very generous in my submission, having regard to the prospects.’
In countersuing, Ms Robinson claimed the Narre Warren home was bought for her and they pair had made an agreement in the kitchen of their previous family home.
The agreement allegedly stipulated that if the singer ever hit financial difficulty, Ms Robinson would repay the initial $650,000 purchase price.
In 2014 she paid $710,000 from the sale of their previous home to pay down Ms Amorosi’s $1.2m California mortgage, claiming the agreement had been fulfilled.
But Justice Moore found the ‘kitchen agreement’ had never happened, with Ms Robinson to be reimbursed the $650,000 plus $219,486 in interest.
The court was told earlier this month Ms Robinson had made claims that were later abandoned that the trust was for the benefit of the whole Amorosi family.
