Cameron v Renouf [No 2] - [2009] WASC 84

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: CAMERON -v- RENOUF [No 2] [2009] WASC 84

CORAM: NEWNES J

HEARD: 24 SEPTEMBER 2008

DELIVERED : 6 APRIL 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 1180 of 1996

BETWEEN: GORDON MAURICE CAMERON
LESLEY RITA CAMERON
Plaintiffs
AND
DIANN VICKI RENOUF
CHRISTOPHER CHARLES RENOUF
Defendants

Catchwords:

Trust - Breach of trust by trustee in failing to transfer land to beneficiary - Beneficiary had use and occupation of land - Beneficiary unable to obtain discounted rate for municipal and water service charges because not registered proprietor - Municipal and water service charges not paid - Entitlement of trustee to be indemnified by beneficiary for outstanding charges and consequential interest and penalties - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Trustee entitled to be indemnified for portion of charges

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs: Ms E C Hensler
Defendants: Mr L E James

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs: Mark Cox
Defendants: Kott Gunning

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

Cameron v Renouf [2008] WASC 60
Hardoon v Belilios [1901] AC 118
Lord Provost of Edinburgh v Lord Advocate (1879) 4 App Cas 823
United States Surgical Corp v Hospital Products International [1983] 2 NSWLR 157

NEWNES J: The application before me is to determine whether the first‑named defendant (Ms Renouf) is entitled to be indemnified by the plaintiffs (the Camerons) in respect of outstanding municipal rates and water, sewerage and drainage service charges (the rates and charges), and associated interest and penalties, owing in respect of a property in Mullaloo.
I heard the application on 24 September 2008 and the parties were then given leave to file further written submissions in relation to the law on a particular issue that had arisen in argument, namely the availability of concessional charges for municipal and water rates where the occupier is not the registered proprietor of the rated land. Those submissions were subsequently filed.

The background

Before turning to the contentions of the parties in relation to the rates and charges, it is necessary to describe briefly the history of the matter.
In 1996, the Camerons commenced the current action against the defendants (the Renoufs) claiming a declaration that the Camerons were the owners in equity of a property located at 22 Meridian Drive, Mullaloo (the Mullaloo property) and seeking an order that Ms Renouf, who is the Camerons' daughter and who was (and is) the registered proprietor of the Mullaloo property, transfer it to them. The Camerons contended that, on 21 July 1986, in the course of a telephone conversation, the Renoufs represented to them that the Mullaloo property had been purchased by the Renoufs as a gift, that it was the Camerons' property, and that they should move to Perth to live there. At the time, the Camerons were living in Auckland and the Renoufs were living in Sydney.
The Camerons said that the Renoufs repeated, in substance, those statements to them on 4 December 1986 in Sydney.
The Camerons said that they acted on the faith of…

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 Cameron v Renouf [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Cameron v Renouf [No 2] [2009] WASC 84
Case: [2009] WASC 84
Decision Date: 6 APRIL 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cameron v Renouf [No 2], the dispute arose between Cameron and Renouf concerning the proper administration of a trust involving land. The trust was established, and Renouf was appointed as the trustee. The beneficiary, Cameron, had the use and occupation of the land but was unable to obtain a discounted rate for municipal and water service charges because they were not the registered proprietor. Consequently, these charges remained unpaid, leading to interest and penalties. The court was tasked with determining whether the trustee, Renouf, was entitled to be indemnified by the beneficiary, Cameron, for the outstanding charges and consequential interest and penalties.

The central legal issues before the court included whether the beneficiary's inability to obtain discounted municipal and water service charges, due to their status as a beneficiary rather than a registered proprietor, constituted a breach of trust by the trustee. Additionally, the court had to ascertain whether the trustee was entitled to be indemnified by the beneficiary for the outstanding charges and the associated interest and penalties, given the beneficiary's failure to pay the municipal and water service charges.

The court's reasoning focused on the specific facts of the case. It considered the nature of the beneficiary's interest in the land and the implications of their status on their ability to obtain discounted charges. The court found that while the beneficiary had the use and occupation of the land, their status did not entitle them to the same benefits as a registered proprietor. Consequently, the court held that the trustee, Renouf, was entitled to be indemnified by the beneficiary, Cameron, for a portion of the outstanding charges and the consequential interest and penalties. The court's decision balanced the responsibilities of the trustee with the practicalities faced by the beneficiary due to their status as a beneficiary rather than the registered proprietor.

Orders

Orders of the court

Trustee entitled to be indemnified for portion of charges

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.