Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Brown v King [2023] NSWCA 36 Hearing dates: 14 February 2023 Decision date: 08 March 2023 Before: Ward P at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
Basten AJA at [125]Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Appellants to pay 80% of the first respondent’s costs.
Catchwords: APPEAL – procedural fairness – whether unrepresented litigant denied opportunity to present case – parties – receiver not joined to proceedings – whether primary judge erred in not making findings about receiver – various other challenges to findings of fact – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Regulations 2021 (Cth), r 12(3)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑vesting) Act 1987 (NSW), s 7
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A(8)
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 7.20-7.22, 36.17, 51.18(1)(e)
Cases Cited: Buresti v Beveridge (1998) 88 FCR 399
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55
Cranbrook School v Woollahra Municipal Council (2006) 66 NSWLR 379; [2006] NSWCA 155
Halford v Price (1960) 105 CLR 23; [1960] HCA 38
King v Brown [2020] NSWSC 1010
King v Brown (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1060
King v Brown (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1116
King v Brown (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 1402
Melrose Farm Pty Ltd v Milward [2008] WASCA 175
Perpetual Custodians Ltd (as custodian for Tamoran Pty Ltd as Trustee for Crivelli) v IOOF Investment Management Ltd [2013] NSWCA 231; 304 ALR 436 Segelov v Ernst & Young Services Pty Ltd (2015) 89 NSWLR 431; [2015] NSWCA 156
Transport Accident Commission v Treloar [1992] 1 VR 447
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Geoffrey Phillip Brown (First appellant)
Barbara Ann Brown (Second appellant)
Stanley King (First respondent)
Riverpines Vineyard Pty Ltd (Second respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Appellants (Self-represented)
P Newton SC, M Hazan (First respondent)
Anne McDonald and Associates Lawyers (First respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/00340527 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Common Law Division
- Citation:
King v Brown (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1060; King v Brown (No3) [2021] NSWSC 1116
- Date of Decision:
- 24 August 2021
- Before:
- Schmidt AJ
- File Number(s):
- 2020/94610
Judgment
-
WARD P: I agree with Leeming JA.
-
LEEMING JA: Mr Geoffrey Phillip Brown and Mrs Barbara Ann Brown operated a vineyard on land owned by them through Riverpines Vineyard Pty Ltd (a company of which they were the sole directors and shareholders). They appeal from what had been, at the time, three substantial judgments against them, comprising one amount of CAD 2,134,924 and also amounts of AUD 1,472,544 and AUD 82,611.97 against each of them, in favour of the respondent, Mr Stanley King, a resident of Canada. The judgments were entered on 2 September 2021 (see King v Brown (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1116), following substantive reasons given on 24 August 2021 after a three-day hearing: King…
Continue reading Brown v King
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Brown v King [2023] NSWCA 36
- Case
- [2023] NSWCA 36
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had failed to afford procedural fairness to the unrepresented appellants, and whether the absence of the receiver as a party necessitated particular findings or vitiated the existing ones. The court also considered a range of other challenges to the primary judge's factual findings.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the primary judge's conduct. The court determined that the appellants had been afforded procedural fairness and that the primary judge was not obliged to make specific findings regarding the receiver in the absence of the receiver being joined as a party. The court also found no basis to interfere with the primary judge's findings of fact. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay 80% of the first respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Appellants to pay 80% of the first respondent’s costs.
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.