For a moment, the grim reality of what might lay ahead for the estranged mother of Australian singer Vanessa Amorosi was unthinkable.
While Joyleen Robinson’s bitter feud with her famous daughter had been building to this point for years, in the Supreme Court of Victoria last week, she was in denial.
She and her husband Peter – a man Amorosi loved more than her biological father – would be booted out onto the street should the judge rule in her daughter’s favour.
A baby-faced Vanessa Amorosi in the year 2000 at the height of a career she claims her mother exploited for her own advantage
Vanessa Amorosi’s mother Joyleen Robinson has been accused ‘unconscionable conduct’ by her daughter. Ms Robinson had spent days in the witness box outlining to her own lawyer how Amorosi made an agreement to give her the 20-acre property she has lived in for decades
Ms Robinson had spent days in the witness box outlining to her own lawyer how Amorosi made an agreement to give her the 20-acre property she has lived in for decades, atop green hills in plush Narre Warren North, 36 km south-east of Melbourne’s Central Business District.
But it was Amorosi’s barrister Philip Solomon KC who drove home the cold hard facts of what was at stake.
Taking to his feet to cross examine Ms Robinson, he cut directly to the chase.
‘If his honour makes orders having the effect that the house is Vanessa’s, you’re happy to tell his honour that you’ll comply with those orders?’ he asked.
‘Sorry is this question for me?’ Ms Robinson responded.
‘Did you not understand my question?’ Mr Solomon responded, before spelling it out in more simple terms.
‘You’ll move out of the property enabling Vanessa to deal with it, that’s correct isn’t it,’ he suggested.
‘No,’ came Ms Robinson’s stern response.
‘I’m sorry I didn’t hear your answer,’ Mr Solomon replied, despite it being delivered loud and clear to all in the courtroom.
‘Did you agree or did you say no?’
‘I said I would let her come and get her stuff that she wants, yeah, but are you saying to me that I’d have to move out? Where would I go?’ Ms Robinson responded.
Vanessa Amorosi’s former studio (pictured) remains on the contested Narre Warren North property
Vanessa Amorosi arrives at the Supreme Court of Victoria on October 13
It was a response that set the tone for what would become a gruelling ordeal for Amorosi’s mother, who ought have known all too well what the final outcome could be.
Ms Robinson had been a cleaner when Amorosi hit the big time off the back of the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
It is a job she has maintained to this very day, taking home about $1000 a week for her efforts.
She has no other assets contained within the disputed Narre Warren North property.
The civil trial has heard Amorosi made just short of $1million in 2001 after exploding onto screens during the 2000 Olympics.
But by the end of 2014, she was booted out of her United States property after seemingly running out of cash.
Last week, Amorosi denied she had ever gifted the property to her mother, who she said had always referred to it as ‘her dream home’.
Ms Robinson claims Amorosi promised to buy her the property for $650,000 – money that she would repay to her daughter at any time she demanded it.
Amorosi’s barrister Philip Solomon, KC has calmly fought the singer’s case
Amorosi, 42, filed her lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2021, claiming ‘unconscionable conduct’ by her mother.
The court heard the singer believed her mother had exploited her wealth during the height of her popularity when she was just a youth.
‘She’s being very generous with my money,’ Amorosi said.
Amorosi told the court she had been brainwashed into believing her mother was the only person to be trusted to handle the millions of dollars she earned after becoming a star.
‘Boyfriends were enemies, husband was the enemy. She was to be the only one there with the right intentions, and I believed it,’ she said.
Amorosi, who flew to Australia from her home in Los Angeles to attend the trial, engaged forensic accountants to look into her mother’s handling of her wealth in 2014.
While the main battle relates to the Narre Warren North property, Amorosi’s home in the US – which is owned by a family company that also owes $650,000 to the Westpac bank – is also at stake.
Amorosi’s step father Peter Robinson (left), her mother Joyleen (centre) and sister Natasha (right) outside the Supreme Court of Victoria
Mr Solomon had sat back quietly for days as Ms Robinson’s barrister Daniel Harrison carefully guided Amorosi’s mother through her evidence.
It had been a tearful display from a mother who claimed to have done everything for her daughter.
Ms Robinson said she had been cut-off from Amorosi’s life, despite her efforts to keep her financially afloat during tough times.
Now on his feet, Mr Solomon asked his question again.
This time Ms Robinson responded in the affirmative.
Over the next 45 minutes Mr Solomon demanded she simply answer his questions.
‘You’re avoiding my question,’ he calmly insisted.
‘Stop evading my question, stop giving speeches, do not add editorial, stop being passive,’ Mr Solomon insisted throughout the cross examination.
Much of his grilling centred around a crucial meeting in 2001 where Ms Robinson claimed her daughter made the important proclamation that the Narre Warren North property the singer had bought with her own money was for her.
Vanessa Amorosi (pictured in 2014) has been in a bitter dispute with her mother
Ms Robinson was forced to admit that previous claims her husband had heard that agreement were not true.
‘I’m trying to remember the truth here. It was a long time ago,’ she told the court.
But when asked repeatedly to detail what was said during that conversation, Ms Robinson said she couldn’t remember.
‘Word for word, I can’t really tell you… she was going to buy a property and it was going to be mine,’ she said.
‘It was going to be my family home. She was buying me a house.’
Amorosi has been unable to shield her despair throughout the trial, both in the witness box and sitting within the courtroom.
She has remained silent as she enters and exits the court, but inside she sobs and reaches for tissues.
The trial before Justice Steven Moore concludes next week.
