Easton v Griffiths - [1995] HCA 38

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TOOHEY J

BRIAN MAHON EASTON v CLIVE EDWARD GRIFFITHS AND OTHERS

(1995) 69 ALJR 669

20 July 1995

Headnote

Hearing

PERTH, 18 July 1995
#DATE 20:7:1995

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Jeremy Richard Ludlow and
Mark Adrian McAuliffe

Solicitors for the Plaintiff: McAuliffe and Associates

Counsel for the Defendants: Mark Geoffrey Pendlebury

Solicitors for the First and Clayton Utz
Fourth Defendants:

Solicitors for the Second Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Defendant:

Solicitor for the Fifth P.A. Panegyres, Crown
Defendant: Solicitor for the State
of Western Australia

Orders

Plaintiff's summons for interlocutory injunction dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the costs of the first defendant, the second defendant, the fourth defendant and the fifth defendant.

Decision

TOOHEY J. The plaintiff has filed a writ in this Court seeking declaratory relief of a wide ranging nature in relation to the proceedings of a Royal Commission ("the Commission") constituted on 9 May 1995 appointing Kenneth Henry Marks QC ("the Commissioner"), the sixth defendant, to inquire into and report on the circumstances surrounding the presentation of a petition to the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia by John Halden, the third defendant, on behalf of Brian Mahon Easton, the plaintiff.

2. The appointment of the Commission and its terms of reference read as follows:

"To: Kenneth Henry Marks QC:

By this commission under the Public Seal of the State issued with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, I, the Lieutenant-Governor and deputy of the governor -

(1) Appoint you to be a Royal Commission to inquire and report on whether the circumstances and events preceding and following the presentation of a petition to the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia on 5 November 1992 by the Honourable John Halden MLC on behalf of Brian Mahon Easton involved conduct that was an improper or inappropriate use of executive power or public office or was motivated by improper or inappropriate considerations, and for that purpose to:
(a) Identify all persons who were at the relevant time -
. Ministers of the Crown;

. members of Parliament;

. staff of such Ministers or members acting on or purporting to
act on behalf of or on the instructions of such Ministers or members; or
. holders of public office,

and who -

(i) were directly or indirectly involved in those circumstances or
events, whether in connection with the preparation of the petition or its presentation or the timing of its presentation or in any other manner, or
(ii) knew of or considered the petition or any of its contents
or proposed contents prior to its presentation to the Legislative Council;
(b) Determine the nature and extent of such involvement, knowledge or consideration and the circumstances in which such knowledge was obtained or such consideration took place;
(c) Determine the motivation for the conduct of those persons in the course of such involvement; and
(d) Determine whether and if so when and to what extent such persons communicated information in respect of the petition…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Easton v Griffiths 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: [1995] HCA 38
Decision Date: 18 July 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Easton v Griffiths* concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Easton, and the defendant, Griffiths. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it was heard before Toohey J of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before Toohey J was the interpretation and application of the *Matrimonial Causes Act 1959* (Cth) in relation to the property of the parties. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether certain assets were to be considered part of the matrimonial property for the purposes of division.

Toohey J's reasoning focused on the principles governing the division of matrimonial property under the *Matrimonial Causes Act 1959*. The judgment likely involved an examination of the evidence presented regarding the acquisition, ownership, and use of the assets in question, and how these facts aligned with the statutory requirements for property adjustment. The court would have applied established legal principles concerning the definition of matrimonial property and the factors to be considered when making orders for its division.

Orders