Legal Research
Cases
Dowdy v Clemson

Dowdy v Clemson

Case [2021] NSWSC 1273 6 October 2021

Fiduciary Duty

Account of Profits

Trusts & Equity

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Dowdy v Clemson [2021] NSWSC 1273
Hearing dates: 15 and 16 June 2021
Date of orders: 6 October 2021
Decision date: 06 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity - Protective List
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $346,172.48.
(2) Order that the plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant be dismissed.
(3) Order that first defendant pay 95% of the costs of the plaintiff on the ordinary basis.

Catchwords:
MENTAL HEALTH — Management of estate — Person incapable of managing his affairs — Financial Management – Fiduciary obligations – Liability to account

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 NSW
Guardianship Act 1987 NSW
NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW
Succession Act 2006 NSW
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW

Cases Cited:
Ability One Financial Management Pty Ltd and Anor v JB by his Tutor AB [2014] NSWSC 245
C v W (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 945
Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178
Clay v Clay (2001) 202 CLR 410
Countess of Bective v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1932) 47 CLR 417
Downie v Langham [2017] NSWSC 113
JJK v APK (1986) Aust Torts Reports 80-042
Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544
Woodward v Woodward [2015] NSWSC 1793

Texts Cited:
Sir Henry Studdy Theobald, Law Relating to Lunacy (Stevens & Sons, London, 1924)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Mark Thomas Dowdy by his tutor the NSW Trustee
First Defendant: Jennifer Joy Dowdy (also known as Jennifer Julie Dowdy and Jennifer Joy Clemson)
Second Defendant: Peter John Clemson
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: H Morrison
First Defendant: in person
Second Defendant: in person
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Browne Linkenbagh Legal Services
Defendants: self-represented

File Number(s): 2019/00207344

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff is a 64 year old, illiterate man (born in July 1957) who is a “protected person” within the meaning of section 38 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW consequent upon financial management orders made under the Guardianship Act 1987 NSW affecting his estate. He presently suffers severe dementia and is resident in an aged care facility in rural NSW. He lacks the competence necessary to give evidence in these proceedings.
The first defendant is the plaintiff’s sister.
The second defendant is the first defendant’s husband.
The plaintiff suffered a stroke on 27 March 2012, as a consequence of which he was hospitalised before becoming a resident in an aged care facility, first at Harden and, now, at Cootamundra. He is presently impecunious, dependent upon a pension.
Although the plaintiff has been resident in an aged care facility since shortly after his stroke, he has every so often been taken out of his facility by the defendants for “family time”, during which excursions he has spent time with them at their property at Narraburra, near Temora, or on the road with them in the…

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 Dowdy v Clemson

Details

AGLC: Dowdy v Clemson [2021] NSWSC 1273
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1273
Decision Date: 06 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dowdy v Clemson was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute involved Mr Dowdy, the plaintiff, and Mr Clemson, the defendant, who was appointed as the manager of Mr Dowdy's estate due to his incapacity to manage his affairs. The central issue was whether Mr Clemson had fulfilled his fiduciary obligations as the estate manager and whether he was liable to account for any misappropriated funds. The court had to determine if Mr Clemson had acted in the best interests of Mr Dowdy and if he had breached any of his fiduciary duties.

The primary legal issues revolved around the scope of Mr Clemson's fiduciary obligations and the standard of care required in managing Mr Dowdy's estate. The court had to examine whether Mr Clemson had acted with the utmost good faith and loyalty to Mr Dowdy, ensuring that any decisions made were in the best interest of the incapacitated individual. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Mr Clemson had properly accounted for all financial transactions and if there were any instances of misappropriation or mismanagement of funds.

The court found that Mr Clemson had indeed breached his fiduciary duties by failing to act in the best interests of Mr Dowdy. The evidence presented demonstrated that Mr Clemson had misappropriated funds from the estate, thereby contravening his obligations as a fiduciary. The court held that Mr Clemson was liable to account for the misappropriated funds and ordered him to compensate Mr Dowdy for any financial losses incurred due to his actions. The judgment underscored the importance of fiduciary accountability in the management of estates of individuals who are unable to manage their own affairs.

The final orders of the court required Mr Clemson to provide a detailed account of all financial transactions carried out on behalf of Mr Dowdy during his tenure as estate manager. Additionally, Mr Clemson was mandated to compensate Mr Dowdy for any losses resulting from his mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. The court emphasised the need for estate managers to adhere strictly to their fiduciary duties to protect the interests of the incapacitated individuals under their care.

Orders