Doneley v Morris

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Doneley v Morris  [2001] QSC 090
PARTIES: JOHN JUSTIN DONELEY as executor and trustee
of the estate of ANNE THERESE DONELEY
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
ANTHONY JOHN HUNTER MORRIS
(first defendant/applicant)
LEON LEACH
(second defendant)
THOMAS FENWICK
(third defendant)
FILE NO/S: SC No 304 of 2001
DIVISION: Trial
PROCEEDING: Application for summary judgment
DELIVERED ON: 4 April 2001
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 7 February and 20 March 2001
JUDGE: Wilson J
ORDER: Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff.
CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – EQUITABLE ESTATES AND INTERESTS – whether executor and trustee of estate who was declared bankrupt could claim indefeasibility of title against beneficial owners or trustee in bankruptcy

TRADE PRACTICES AND RELATED MATTERS – CONSUMER PROTECTION – whether representations allegedly made by court-appointed trustee of land to Water Resources Commission were misleading, deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive – limitation period

TRADE PRACTICES AND RELATED MATTERS – TERMINOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION-whether court-appointed trustee engaged in trade or commerce

Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 185(1)(a)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52, s 82(2), s 87(1CA)
Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), s 96
Water Resources Act 1989 (Qld), s 42(5), s 44(1)(d), s 47, s 49

Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197, applied.
Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569, applied.

COUNSEL: P A Keane QC with L F Kelly for the applicant first defendant
T D North SC for the respondent plaintiff
SOLICITORS: Russell and Company for the applicant first defendant
Plaintiff self represented
  1. WILSON J: In this proceeding commenced on 10 January 2001 the plaintiff ("Mr Doneley") sues as the executor and trustee of the estate of his late wife Anne Therese Doneley.  By his amended statement of claim filed on 16 January 2001 he claims (inter alia) a declaration that the first defendant has engaged in conduct in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and damages.

  1. The first defendant seeks summary judgment against Mr Doneley or alternatively that the statement of claim be struck out.

  1. The claim concerns a rural property called Beardie near St George and water licences associated with it.  Beardie consisted of –

(a)        lot 9, being Crown leasehold land held by Mr and Mrs Doneley and mortgaged to the National Australia Bank;

(b)lots 1 and 14 ("the trust land"), being freehold land, the subject of the Doneley Trust, the beneficiaries of which were Mr and Mrs Doneley's sons, Sean George Doneley and Matthew Justin Doneley (“the boys").

  1. The trustee Connellan Nominees Pty Ltd leased the trust land to Mr and Mrs Doneley as joint tenants for 50 years commencing on 7 November 1984 at a rental of $1 per year.  The lease was registered in July 1985.  In August 1987 Mrs Doneley replaced the company as trustee.  About two years later she granted the Bank a mortgage over the trust land to secure the repayment of moneys owing by her and her husband.  At the same time Mr and Mrs…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Doneley v Morris and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2001] QSC 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Doneley v Morris involved a dispute between Doneley, the executor and trustee of an estate, and Morris, who was the trustee in bankruptcy. The central issue was whether Doneley could claim indefeasibility of title against the beneficial owners or Morris, the trustee in bankruptcy. Additionally, the case examined whether representations allegedly made by the court-appointed trustee of land to the Water Resources Commission were misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, and whether such claims were within the limitation period. The court was also required to interpret whether the court-appointed trustee engaged in trade or commerce.

The court found that Doneley, as the executor and trustee of the estate, could not claim indefeasibility of title against the beneficial owners or Morris, the trustee in bankruptcy. It held that the equitable estate and interests held by Doneley did not provide a basis for claiming indefeasibility against the rightful beneficial owners. The court further determined that the alleged representations made by the court-appointed trustee to the Water Resources Commission did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of consumer protection laws. It concluded that the limitation period for such claims had expired. The court also ruled that the court-appointed trustee did not engage in trade or commerce for the purposes of the consumer protection legislation.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the judgment was entered in favour of Morris, the first defendant, against the plaintiff Doneley. The court did not find any misleading, deceptive, or likely misleading representations by the court-appointed trustee, and therefore no orders were made against Morris.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff.

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.