Charles William Robson & Anor v Gary Francis Robson

[2012] HCASL 175

CHARLES WILLIAM ROBSON & ANOR

v

GARY FRANCIS ROBSON

[2012] HCASL 175
B30/2012

1. The applicants are husband and wife.  The first applicant and the respondent are brothers.  The applicants held equally all of the 48 issued shares in Yalgold Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ("Yalgold").  On liquidation, Yalgold's assets exceeded its liabilities.

2. In 1989 the applicants declared in writing that they had received and would hold in trust for the respondent 24 of the 48 issued shares in Yalgold.  Thereafter, Yalgold acquired substantial assets.

3. In 1995 the applicants again declared in writing that they held in trust for the respondent one half of their combined shareholding in Yalgold (and in some other companies).

4. In 1999 the brothers fell out.

5. In November 2004 the respondent commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland against the applicants seeking to enforce the trusts declared in 1989 and 1995.

6. At first instance, P D McMurdo J declared that each of the applicants held 12 ordinary shares in the issued capital of Yalgold in trust for the respondent and ordered the applicants to execute and deliver transfers of those shares.  The applicants appealed against these orders to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland but that Court (Muir, Fraser and White JJA) dismissed the appeal.  The applicants seek special leave to appeal to this Court.

7. The applicants seek to argue that the respondent had "repeatedly perjured himself in several court proceedings" (in particular in matrimonial proceedings in the Family Court of Australia) to deny that he had any beneficial interest in shares in Yalgold.  Accordingly, so the applicants allege, the respondent should have been held disentitled for this reason alone, or in combination with other circumstances, to the relief he had sought and obtained at first instance.

8. The applicants show no arguable error in the identification of the applicable principles, whether at first instance or in the Court of Appeal.  The points which the applicants seek to argue in this Court would, therefore, turn on the application of known and accepted principles to the particular facts of the case.

9. It is not shown to be in the interests of justice generally or in this particular case that there be a grant of special leave.

10. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 the Registrar is directed to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application for special leave is dismissed with costs.

K.M. Hayne
5 December 2012 S.M. Crennan