Vanessa Amorosi appears tense as she takes a call at Melbourne Airport following court battle with mother

Vanessa Amorosi looked tense as she landed in Melbourne on Monday.

The Australian singer, 43, who recently won a lawsuit against her mother, went for a casual look as she arrived at her hometown airport.

The This Is Who I Am hitmaker wore a long, varsity-style sweater, colored white with red and blue trims.

She paired the sweater with a white T-shirt with a blue ‘A’ print with red, orange and yellow stripes.

Vanessa wore black tights and white sneakers as she walked through the terminal.

The singer, who moved to the US in 2017, wore her dark hair down and went for a make-up-free look as she returned Down Under.

The singer looked irritated when she called after collecting her luggage.

Later, a seemingly shy Vanessa donned black sunglasses and tried to hide behind a male friend as she left Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport.

It comes after Amorosi appears to have reached a standoff with her mother after suing her over ownership of properties in Australia and the United States following a dramatic row.

The Absolutely Everything artist sued Joyleen Robinson last year for sole ownership of two properties, nearly a decade after the couple fell out over her music income.

Ms Robinson had lived in the semi-rural property in Narre Warren in Melbourne’s south-east since 2001, while the other was Ms Amorosi’s current home in California.

Earlier this year, Supreme Court Justice Steven Moore ruled that Ms. Amorosi was entitled to the properties, but her mother would have to pay nearly $870,000 in restitution.

The case returned to court this month after negotiations between lawyers representing the mother and daughter failed.

Ms Amorosi’s lawyer Joel Fetter said the singer put forward two of three options for a settlement between the couple after the court ruling.

In the first, Mr Fetter said Ms Amorosi would allow her mother to remain in the house if she were bought out of her interest in the regional property.

Ms Robinson could otherwise choose to sell the property, although the court was told there were disagreements over how and for how much that would happen.

Mr Fetter told the court it was common for the Real Estate Institute of Victoria to be appointed to find a real estate agent, or alternatively someone with knowledge of selecting real estate agents.

The second option required Ms Amorosi to make a net payment to Ms Robinson, after the funds had been exchanged between the two in order of cost.

The offer was initially made on the eve of the trial and would result in Ms Robinson walking away with $350,000, after paying $300,000 to Ms Amorosi.

High Court Judge Steven Moore questioned whether the order was “reasonable”, the basis on which he will make his ruling on costs.

“The final proposal is a net transfer of $350,000, which is far less than what Ms. Robinson is entitled to under the court’s order,” he said.

The court was told the calculations used to make the amount to be paid by Mrs Robinson were flawed, but Mr Fetter said the net amount stood.

In his argument, Ms Robinson’s lawyer, Daniel Harrison, also disputed how the figure was calculated and that it had no bearing on the final bid.

“It’s a serious matter, and I’m not suggesting there was intent or recklessness in stating the $300,000 figure, but it was a gross error,” he said.

“It was a big mistake and you can’t hear my learned friend say, or you can’t hear the prosecutor say, look, the end justifies the means.”

Ms Amorosi initiated legal action in March 2021 to gain sole ownership of a trust that listed both women as owners.

The singer claimed that the properties had been purchased from her and that her mother had been “very generous” with the millions of dollars she earned.

“She’s the party that made all the money to buy it, she’s the party that, obviously, with that new-found wealth, would want to buy a house for themselves,” Farrer said.

“And she is the party that acted consistently in subsequent years, with the position that the house was hers.

“So we’re saying that in this offer, where Ms. Amorosi says you can get half the house, it’s a 5050, which was very generous in my submission, given the prospects.”

In her counterclaim, Mrs Robinson claimed the house in Narre Warren was bought for her and the couple had a deal in the kitchen of their previous family home.

The agreement reportedly stipulated that if the singer ever encountered financial difficulties, Ms. Robinson would repay the initial purchase price of $650,000.

In 2014, she paid $710,000 from the sale of their previous home to pay off Ms Amorosi’s $1.2 million California mortgage, claiming the agreement had been honored.

But Judge Moore found the ‘kitchen deal’ never happened, with Ms Robinson getting back the $650,000 plus $219,486 in interest.

The court was told earlier this month that Mrs Robinson had made claims, which were later abandoned, that the trust benefited the entire Amorosi family.