Farrall v Money - [2012] QCA 262

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Farrall v Money [2012] QCA 262

PARTIES:

MICHAEL DE WHALLEY FARRALL
(appellant)
v
DEBORAH MONEY
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3625 of 2012
DC No 92 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

25 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Philip McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:
1.Appeal dismissed.

2. Order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – where appellant has proceedings ongoing in the Family Court of Australia to determine whether a relevant de facto relationship existed between the appellant and respondent – where the appellant sought declaration that beneficial ownerships was shared with the respondent as tenants in common in equal shares of a residential property – where the judge below stayed the proceeding pending the conclusion of the appellant’s appeal in the Family Court of Australia – whether the learned judge erred in ordering the stay

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth)
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)

Farrall v Money [2012] QDC, unreported, Newton DCJ, DC No 92 of 2012, 26 March 2012, cited

COUNSEL:

J F Curran for the appellant
P T Morrow for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Browns Lawyers for the appellant
Craig Ray & Associates for the respondent

JAHOLMES : I agree with the reasons of Gotterson JA and with the orders his Honour proposes.

GOTTERSON JA: The appellant commenced proceedings by way of an originating application filed in the District Court at Southport on 16 February 2012. The relief sought in the proceedings concerns a residential property at 45 Skyline Terrace, Burleigh Heads of which the respondent is currently the registered proprietor. In addition to a declaration that beneficial ownership is shared by the appellant and the respondent as tenants in common in equal shares, the substantive relief sought by the appellant in the proceedings is the appointment of statutory trustees for sale of the property under Part 5 of the Property Law Act 1974 (“PL Act”) and the payment by the trustees of the net proceeds of sale to the appellant and the respondent in equal shares.

The appellant’s claim to co-ownership of the Burleigh Heads property arises from the terms of a Deed of Release dated 9 February 2006 (“Deed”) executed by the appellant and the respondent in settlement of property adjustment proceedings which the appellant had commenced against the respondent under Part 19 of the PL Act in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 8 June 2005. The Deed provided that in consideration of the respondent holding one half of the Burleigh Heads…

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 Farrall v Money

Details

AGLC: Farrall v Money [2012] QCA 262
Case: [2012] QCA 262
Decision Date: 25 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Farrall v Money is a Family Law case concerning the existence of a de facto relationship and the application of a constructive trust to a residential property. The appellant, Farrall, was engaged in proceedings in the Family Court of Australia to ascertain whether a de facto relationship existed between them and the respondent, Money. Concurrently, Farrall sought a declaration that the beneficial ownership of a residential property was shared with Money as tenants in common in equal shares. The Family Court judge stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of Farrall's appeal in the Family Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the Family Court judge correctly exercised their discretion to stay the proceedings.

The court examined the principles of judicial discretion in staying proceedings, particularly in cases where related matters are pending in other courts. The court considered the need for judicial economy, the potential for conflicting outcomes, and the interests of the parties involved. The court found that the Family Court judge exercised their discretion appropriately, taking into account the ongoing appeal in the Family Court of Australia and the potential for conflicting outcomes. The court concluded that the Family Court judge did not err in ordering the stay of the proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the standard basis. The court's decision reinforced the importance of judicial discretion in managing related proceedings and ensuring that outcomes are consistent and just. The stay of the proceedings in the Family Court of Australia was upheld, pending the resolution of the appeal and the determination of the existence of a de facto relationship between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Appeal dismissed.

2. Order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Farrall v Money [2012] QCA 262
PARTIES:	MICHAEL DE WHALLEY FARRALL (appellant) v DEBORAH MONEY (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3625 of 2012 DC No 92 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	25 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 September 2012
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Philip McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1.Appeal dismissed. 2. Order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – where appellant has proceedings ongoing in the Family Court of Australia to determine whether a relevant de facto relationship existed between the appellant and respondent – where the appellant sought declaration that beneficial ownerships was shared with the respondent as tenants in common in equal shares of a residential property – where the judge below stayed the proceeding pending the conclusion of the appellant’s appeal in the Family Court of Australia – whether the learned judge erred in ordering the stay District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) Farrall v Money [2012] QDC, unreported, Newton DCJ, DC No 92 of 2012, 26 March 2012, cited
COUNSEL:	J F Curran for the appellant P T Morrow for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Browns Lawyers for the appellant Craig Ray & Associates for the respondent