Cameron v Cameron

Case [2023] QSC 61

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cameron v Cameron & others [2023] QSC 61

PARTIES:

SIMON MURRAY CAMERON

(plaintiff/fifth defendant by counterclaim)

v
BENJAMIN KEITH CAMERON

(first defendant/first plaintiff by counterclaim)

NICHOLAS ADAM CAMERON

(second defendant/sixth defendant by counterclaim)

KEITH MURRAY CAMERON

(third defendant/seventh defendant by counterclaim)

JENNIFER ROBYN CAMERON

(fourth defendant/eighth defendant by counterclaim)

ARDNO FARMING PTY LTD ACN 078 783 865 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CAMERON PROPETY TRUST

(fifth defendant/ninth defendant by counterclaim)

CAMERON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 132 837 597 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CAMERON PROPERTY NO. 2 TRUST

(sixth defendant/tenth defendant by counterclaim)

NORTHERN GROWERS PTY LTD

(second plaintiff by counterclaim)

BULLARTOO INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 159 777 278

(first defendant by counterclaim)

CAMERON FARMING PTY LTD ACN 105 611 363

(second defendant by counterclaim)

ROMA FEEDLOT AND SPELLING YARDS PTY LTD ACN 608 947 299

(third defendant by counterclaim)

BEEF CHAIN PTY LTD ACN 621 259 470

(fourth defendant by counterclaim)

FILE NO/S:

7095 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 November 2022

JUDGE:

Ryan J

ORDER:

The parties are to prepare draft orders and directions in accordance with my reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES – PLEADING – DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM – application to join new plaintiff by counterclaim

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES – PLEADING – DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM – whether counterclaim liable to be struck out because of failure to comply with the UCPR – whether countering anything in the claim – where brought by new plaintiff against several new defendants – whether counterclaim for declaration of utility

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES – PLEADING – “narrative” pleading – whether liable to be struck out before of non-compliance with the UCPR

COUNSEL: 

M Jones and L Tassell, for the plaintiff/fifth defendant by counterclaim and second defendant by counterclaim
M Hodge KC and A Psaltis, for the first defendant/first plaintiff by counterclaim and second plaintiff by counterclaim
D C Clarry, for the second defendant/sixth plaintiff by counterclaim and first defendant by counterclaim

J P Hastie, for the third defendant/seventh defendant by counterclaim, fourth defendant/eighth plaintiff by counterclaim, third defendant by counterclaim and fourth defendant by counterclaim

SOLICITORS:

Cooper Grace Ward, for the plaintiff/fifth defendant by counterclaim and second defendant by counterclaim
Bartley Cohen, for the first defendant/first plaintiff by counterclaim and second plaintiff by counterclaim

Carter Newell, for the second defendant/sixth plaintiff by counterclaim
Nicholsons Solicitors, for the third defendant/seventh defendant by counterclaim, fourth defendant/eighth plaintiff by counterclaim

Summary

  1. The Cameron family has been in the farming business for decades, operating across several properties in Queensland and New South Wales.  From 1978 until 2009, Keith and Jennifer Cameron operated the business with the help of their sons Simon, Nick, and Ben.[1]  In 2009, Keith and Jennifer stepped back from…

Continue reading Cameron v Cameron

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cameron v Cameron [2023] QSC 61
Case
[2023] QSC 61
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cameron v Cameron, the dispute involved a complex web of family and business relationships surrounding the ownership and management of Ardno Pastoral, a company owned by Keith and Jennifer Cameron and managed by their three sons, Simon, Ben, and Nick. The proceedings were initiated by Simon, who brought an action against his brothers and their companies, alleging breaches of a Succession Deed that governed the division of family assets upon the parents' deaths. Ben, in turn, filed a counterclaim against Simon and the other defendants, asserting claims of oppression and seeking a declaration regarding the validity of the Succession Deed. The court was tasked with deciding whether Ben's counterclaim was properly brought under the circumstances and whether it complied with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The legal issues before the court included whether Ben's counterclaim was appropriately brought as a counterclaim in the Succession Deed proceedings and whether it complied with the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the court had to determine if the counterclaim was a new claim by a new plaintiff against new defendants, and if so, whether it could still be considered a proper counterclaim. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the counterclaim countered anything in Simon's claim and if it was relevant to the proceedings. The form of pleading, particularly whether a narrative pleading was permissible, was also scrutinized.

The court found that Ben's oppression counterclaim was not a proper counterclaim because it was a new and distinct claim brought by a new plaintiff against new defendants, unrelated to Simon's claim. The counterclaim dealt with the conduct of the feedlot business, which was separate from the issues surrounding the Succession Deed. The court further held that the counterclaim did not counter anything in Simon's claim and was not relevant to the proceedings. Regarding the form of pleading, the court noted that while a narrative pleading was not inherently improper, it must still plead material facts relevant to the relief claimed. The court concluded that the oppression counterclaim failed to meet the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and was therefore liable to be struck out.

The court ordered that the parties prepare draft orders and directions in accordance with the reasons provided in the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The parties are to prepare draft orders and directions in accordance with my reasons.

Background

Background to the litigation

My reasons follow.Background and chronology revealed by affidavit evidence The eight affidavits read in these applications provided information about the background to the family’s disputes and exhibited the correspondence between the parties and their lawyers in the lead up to the making of the claims and counterclaims, and beyond. The following information is drawn from the affidavits.[2] It was necessary to consider the history of the disputes in detail to evaluate the argument made by Ben that they were sufficiently connected as to warrant the filing of the oppression counterclaim in the Succession Deed proceedings. I have discussed the content of the parties’ correspondence in some detail, in anticipation of future arguments about the costs of these applications. [2]The eight affidavits are those contained in the “Working Bundle of Affidavit Material [for the] applications returnable on 30 November 2022” folder, namely, the affidavits of Amy Heselwood (affirmed 30 September 2022), Jennifer Cameron (affirmed 19 October 2022), Meagan Brown (20 October 2022); Ben Cohen (affirmed 21 October 2022), Amy Heselwood (affirmed 23 November 2022), Bridget Camilleri (sworn 28 November 2022), Ben Cohen (affirmed 29 November 2022) and A Heselwood (affirmed 29 November 2022). The current patriarch and matriarch of the Cameron family are Keith and Jennifer Cameron. Simon, Ben, and Nick are their sons. Keith has required full-time care since 2017. Jennifer is his carer. She is in her early eighties. Jennifer and Keith purchased Keith’s parents’ company, “Ardno Pastoral”, in 1978. Ardno Pastoral operates in Queensland and New South Wales. Historically, its operations have been conducted on the following properties – Oaklea (Qld)Adrno (Qld)Dunan (Qld)Tralee (NSW)Tooramanda (NSW)Colane (NSW) Since 1992, Simon has been involved in the day-to-day management and operations of Ardno Pastoral. Since 1997, Nick has been involved in the day-to-day management and operations of Ardno Pastoral. Ben currently works for Bentleys, a firm of business advisors and accountants. He is the accountant and advisor for Ardno Pastoral but is not involved hands-on in the farming business. Keith and Jennifer stepped away from the business in about 2009. In April 2009, Keith and Jennifer executed their most recent wills. The wills each provided for their property to go first to the surviving spouse and then to their three sons as follows – (a)Ardno to Nick – conditional upon his assuming certain liabilities;(b)Oakey, Dunan, “the Buderim property” and interest in the superannuation fund to Ben – conditional upon his assuming certain liabilities; and(c)Shares in the entities which owned Tralee, Tooramanda and Colane to Simon – conditional upon his assuming certain liabilities. The business fell into financial difficulties from about 2013. In about 2015, Dunan was advertised for sale. In 2016, Keith suffered a stroke. After about 12 months on the market, the farming business sold Dunan to Ben’s company, Northern Growers, in 2016, thereby enabling debt owed by Keith and Jennifer to be repaid. Ben paid market value for the property, borrowing funds to do so, on the basis that he would build a feedlot on part of Dunan, which would be leased to a company owned and controlled by the three brothers. The feedlot was intended to fortify the family’s main asset, Ardno Pastoral, against failing wheat yields caused by lower rainfall.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Ben and Northern Growers argued that their pleading was neither non-conventional nor impermissible and – having regard to the statement of claim – entirely proper.Conclusion In my view, the oppression counterclaim must be struck out. The requirements of the relevant rules have not been fulfilled. It is not a claim brought by a defendant. The putative oppression claim is a new and different claim by a new plaintiff (Northern Growers) against a suite of new defendants. There is no relevant connection between it and Simon’s claim. As I said in the context of my discussion of Ben’s application, the counterclaim is all about the conduct of the feedlot business. And issues in the feedlot business arising years after the Succession Deed was signed have no bearing upon misrepresentations said to have been made in the lead up to the signing of the deed. And – at the risk of repeating myself – it counters nothing in Simon’s claim. Nor is it appropriate to treat the corporate defendants as – in effect – the equivalent of their directors, the brothers. Indeed, were I to treat Northern Growers as Ben, he would have no standing to bring his counterclaim anyway. In my view, it is appropriate to consider the claims in the counterclaim separately – following the approach of Margaret Wilson J and, for that matter, Cooke J. On that approach, the claim for a declaration, even if I were to find it had utility, could not be used as some sort of device to validate the oppression claim as a counterclaim Having said that, in my view, the claim for a declaration is of no utility. No one is suggesting that the Succession Deed is anything other than valid and binding – subject to Simon’s argument about one aspect of it. But the parties are certainly of notice of Ben’s desire for a declaration, and Ben may make it upon the resolution of Simon’s claim via court proceedings. With respect to the complaints about the content of the counterclaim and the way it was pleaded: in my view, a narrative pleading per se is not necessarily liable to strike out. But it must only plead material facts relevant to the relief claimed – and not, for example, evidence or irrelevant background.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.