Campos v Lopes

Case [2021] QSC 42


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Campos v Lopes [2021] QSC 42

PARTIES:

MANUEL JOSE CAMPOS IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE I’D RATHER BE SURFING TRUST

(applicant)

v
SERGIO LOPES

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

8135 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

28 October 2020
Applicant’s written closing submissions: 12 November 2020, Agreed chronology: 25 November 2020, Respondent’s written closing submissions: 2 December 2020

JUDGE:

Flanagan J

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to s 82(1) of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), the Court orders that 85,400 shares in Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals Ltd currently registered in the name of the respondent are vested in the applicant.

2.    I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – EXPRESS TRUSTS CONSTITUTED INTER VIVOS – DECLARATION OF TRUST – NECESSITY FOR INTENTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant and respondent were co-directors – where shares were purchased in the name of the company – where shares were also purchased by the respondent in his own name – where the respondent purchased the shares using funds loaned from the company – where the respondent’s subsequent words and actions evidence an intention that the shares were held on trust for the applicant – whether that evidence is admissible as admissions contrary to interest

Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), s 82, s 90

Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242, applied
Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (1956) 95 CLR 353, applied
Kauter v Hilton (1953) 90 CLR 86, cited
Korda v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Limited (2015) 255 CLR 62, cited
Re Tresdar Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 179, cited
Trustees of the Property of Cummins v Cummins (2006) 227 CLR 278, considered

COUNSEL:

M C Long for the applicant

C Templeton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the applicant

Law Central Legal for the respondent

  1. Mr Campos, the applicant, and Mr Lopes, the respondent, are both accountants.  On 3 May 2013 Odyssey (WA) Pty Ltd (Odyssey) was incorporated.  Odyssey carried on a business known as Odyssey Business Knowledge (OBK) which delivered accounting and bookkeeping services as well as tax and wealth planning services.[1]

    [1]T 1-6, lines 1-4.

  2. From its incorporation until October 2019 Mr Campos and Mr Lopes were co‑directors of Odyssey and each held 50 per cent of the shares in the company.  Mr Campos held his shares in his capacity as trustee for the I’d Rather Be Surfing Trust and Mr Lopes held his shares in his capacity as trustee for the Lopes Family Trust. 

  3. When Odyssey was incorporated both Mr Campos and Mr Lopes were resident in Western Australia.  In 2014 Mr Campos moved to Queensland.  OBK conducted business primarily in Western Australia and Queensland, with Mr Lopes being based in Western Australia and maintaining a predominantly Western Australia client base and Mr Campos being based in Queensland and maintaining a predominantly…

Continue reading Campos v Lopes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Campos v Lopes [2021] QSC 42
Case
[2021] QSC 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campos v Lopes involved co-directors of a company who purchased shares in Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. The shares were purchased in two forms: some were bought in the company's name, while others were acquired by the respondent, Mr. Lopes, in his individual capacity. Crucially, Mr. Lopes used company funds to purchase the latter shares. The applicant, Mr. Campos, sought to establish that these shares were held on trust for him, arguing that Mr. Lopes' subsequent conduct and statements evidenced an intention to hold the shares in trust. The primary focus of the case was whether the evidence of Mr. Lopes' intention could be admitted as an admission against interest.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of Mr. Lopes' intention to hold the shares on trust for Mr. Campos could be admitted under the doctrine of admissions against interest and, if so, whether this evidence was sufficient to establish the existence of an express trust. The doctrine of admissions against interest allows for statements made by a party to be admitted as evidence against them when those statements are contrary to their own interest. Additionally, the court had to determine whether there was a clear intention to create a trust, considering the conduct and statements made by Mr. Lopes.

The court found that the evidence provided by Mr. Lopes, including his statements and actions, could indeed be admitted as admissions against interest. The court emphasised that the intention to create a trust must be clearly established, and the evidence in this case sufficiently demonstrated Mr. Lopes' intention that the shares were held on trust for Mr. Campos. The court was satisfied that the intention was clear and unequivocal, and the shares were therefore held on trust for the applicant. Consequently, the court ordered that the 85,400 shares in Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals Ltd, currently registered in the name of Mr. Lopes, be vested in Mr. Campos. The court reserved its decision on costs pending further submissions from the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 82(1) of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), the Court orders that 85,400 shares in Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals Ltd currently registered in the name of the respondent are vested in the applicant.

2. I will hear the parties as to 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.