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 PlaintiffsJOHN AINSWORTH
ELLEN MAY AINSWORTH
Third PlaintiffAND
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
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
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.
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] WASC 289
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.