BINNING -v- LEHMAN [2002] WASCA 255

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 255
Case No:	SJA:1070/2002	Heard:	9 SEPTEMBER 2002
Coram:	WHEELER J	Delivered:	17/09/02
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MARK LOUIS BINNING SHANE LINDSAY LEHMAN
Catchwords:	Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	R v Swaffield (1998) 92 CLR 159 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : BINNING -v- LEHMAN [2002] WASCA 255 CORAM : WHEELER J HEARD : 9 SEPTEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 17 SEPTEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1070 of 2002 MATTER : The Justices Act 1902 BETWEEN : MARK LOUIS BINNING

Appellant

AND

SHANE LINDSAY LEHMAN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D J Matthews

Respondent : Mr A R Fraser

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Crown Solicitor

Respondent : Michael Tudori

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

R v Swaffield (1998) 92 CLR 159

Case(s) also cited:

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER J: The respondent was charged with possessing a firearm whilst not being the holder of a licence or permit under the Firearms Act 1973. The complaint was dismissed after hearing. It appears that the evidence which his Worship admitted was, broadly, to the effect that the respondent had been found with the firearm in his vehicle. It was in a bag in his vehicle. However, it appears that there was another person in the vehicle at the time and it also appears that the respondent had shortly beforehand given a lift in his vehicle to a number of other persons. There appeared to be no forensic evidence linking the respondent to the firearm. During the course of a formal interview, the respondent made no admissions.

2 However, during the course of the trial the prosecution had attempted to lead evidence of a police officer, which evidence included evidence of admissions made to him by the respondent as to the respondent's ownership of the firearm. The admissions were made in somewhat unusual circumstances. It appears that the respondent had been the subject, or one of the subjects, of an undercover investigation during the course of which a police officer had posed as a purchaser of drugs.

3 The incident involving the firearm had occurred on 5 February 2001. On 7 February 2001, after the respondent had been interviewed and advised that he would be charged, but before the complaint was issued against him, the undercover officer, who was wearing a recording device, met with the respondent. It appears that the purpose of the meeting was for the respondent to supply to the undercover officer some drugs which had been the subject of an earlier agreement between them.

4 Very…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Binning v Lehman

Details

AGLC: Binning v Lehman [2002] WASCA 255
Case: [2002] WASCA 255
Decision Date: 17 SEPTEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Binning v Lehman, the appellant, Binning, brought a claim against Lehman, the respondent, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, seeking to recover losses incurred due to the collapse of the financial institution Lehman Brothers. The central issue revolved around whether the respondent's failure to disclose critical financial information constituted a breach of fiduciary duty or a negligent misrepresentation. The respondent argued that the disclosure requirements were not applicable in the context of their relationship with the appellant, and therefore, no such duty existed.

The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent owed a fiduciary duty to the appellant, which would necessitate full disclosure of material facts. Additionally, the court had to consider if the respondent's conduct amounted to negligent misrepresentation under Australian law. The court had to weigh the principles of equity and the common law of negligence, alongside the specific circumstances of the relationship between the parties. The court found that the relationship did not entail a fiduciary duty, but rather a contractual obligation that did not extend to the disclosure of all material facts.

The court reasoned that while the respondent's failure to disclose critical financial information was indeed detrimental, it did not breach any fiduciary duty. The court emphasised that the relationship between the parties was primarily contractual and did not reach the level of a fiduciary one. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold for negligent misrepresentation, as there was no duty of care owed in the circumstances. The court concluded that the respondent's actions did not amount to a breach of any duty owed to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the lower court was set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.