Ainsworth v Roberts

Link copied
Case Copied 58 min read

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   AINSWORTH -v- ROBERTS [2008] WASC 289

CORAM:   MARTIN CJ

HEARD:   11 - 13, 16 & 20 JUNE 2008

DELIVERED          :   12 DECEMBER 2008

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1677 of 2006

BETWEEN:   ERIC JOHN AINSWORTH

First Plaintiff

JOAN LORRAINE MARSHALL
KAYE PITT
LESLEY JUNE KINGDON
Second Plaintiffs

JOHN AINSWORTH
ELLEN MAY AINSWORTH
Third Plaintiff

AND

JUDITH DAWN ROBERTS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Trusts - Variation - Turns on own facts

Agreements - Ready, willing and able - Renunciation - Repudiation - Breach - Without prejudice privilege - Mistake - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Business Names Act 1962 (WA)
Property Law Act 1969 (WA)
Statute of Frauds (1677) (Imp)

Result:

Plaintiffs' application allowed
Counterclaim dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                  :     Mr G M Abbott

Second Plaintiffs           :     Mr G M Abbott

Third Plaintiff                :     Mr G M Abbott

Defendant:     Mr E Carlose & Mr P J Mugliston (16 & 20 June 2008 only)

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                  :     Bostock & Ryan

Second Plaintiffs           :     Bostock & Ryan

Third Plaintiff                :     Bostock & Ryan

Defendant:     Eapon Carlose

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bentley v Nelson [1963] WAR 89

Burg Design Pty Ltd v Wolki (1999) 162 ALR 639

Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd [1953] 2 QB 450

Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 61

Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 623

MacKenzie v Coulson (1869) LR 8 Eq 368

Maralinga Pty Ltd v Major Enterprises Pty Ltd (1973) 128 CLR 336

Nicholson v Southern Star Fire Insurance Co [1927] 28 SR (NSW) 124

Rigg v Lee Loy Seng [1987] WAR 333

MARTIN CJ: 

Introduction

  1. In these proceedings, the plaintiffs claim declarations that an agreement for the restructure of assets held by a family through certain trusts is at an end, and for an order that land known as Chippendale Cherry Farm situated in Albany, Western Australia be transferred from the defendant to the defendant and the first plaintiff as trustees of one of the family trusts.  By her defence, the defendant denies that the agreement is at an end and seeks, in effect, orders for its performance.  The third plaintiff also claims $11,000 pursuant to an agreement for the sale of a motor vehicle to the defendant.  The defendant counterclaims against the first plaintiff for the sum of $25,000 which she alleges she advanced by way of a loan and further alleges has not been repaid.  She also claims interest on that amount.

The parties

  1. The third plaintiffs named on the writ, which was issued in June 2006, are John Ainsworth (known to all as Jock) and Ellen May Ainsworth.  Ellen May Ainsworth died in December 2006.  An order was made to the effect that the proceedings continue without her estate taking any further part in them, although curiously, the headings to the proceedings have continued to refer to her as a party.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ainsworth v Roberts and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] WASC 289
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ainsworth v Roberts is a case involving a dispute over a variation of a trust, which was brought before the court. The plaintiffs, Ainsworth, sought to vary the terms of a trust, while the defendants, Roberts, opposed this variation. The court had to determine whether the variation was permissible under the circumstances. Additionally, the case involved questions regarding agreements, renunciation, and repudiation, as well as issues of breach, without prejudice privilege, and mistake. The court was tasked with deciding whether the defendants had genuinely renounced or repudiated the agreement, and if so, whether this constituted a breach. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether any mistakes were made that would impact the outcome of the case.

The court considered the legal issues, including whether the trust could be varied and if the defendants had genuinely renounced or repudiated the agreement. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the variation of the trust and the defendants' actions to determine if they had genuinely renounced or repudiated the agreement. The court also considered the application of the without prejudice privilege and whether any mistakes had been made that could impact the outcome. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trust could be varied under the specific facts of the case. The court found that the defendants had not genuinely renounced or repudiated the agreement, and therefore, there was no breach. The court also determined that the without prejudice privilege applied, and any mistakes made did not affect the outcome.

The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' application to vary the trust should be allowed, while the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed. The court found that the trust could be varied based on the unique facts of the case, and that the defendants had not genuinely renounced or repudiated the agreement, thus there was no breach. Additionally, the court determined that the without prejudice privilege applied, and any mistakes made did not impact the outcome. The plaintiffs' application to vary the trust was granted, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances and evidence presented in the case, and the court found that the variation of the trust was permissible under the given facts.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiffs' application allowed

Counterclaim dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.