Franks v Cameron

Case [2024] NSWCA 56


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Franks v Cameron [2024] NSWCA 56
Hearing dates: 7 March 2024
Decision date: 15 March 2024
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Adamson JA at [111];
Stern JA at [112]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE - dismissal for default - summons seeking appointment of trustees for sale of co-owned land - cross-claim seeking orders that defendant/cross-claimant was sole owner - cross-claimant did not appear at hearing - formal application for adjournment based on loss of legal representation, not being supplied with documents and psychiatric injury - informal application on morning of hearing based on cross-claim suffering cardiac episode - primary judge permitted cross-claimant to establish extenuating circumstances to justify adjournment - following subsequent contested hearing, primary judge not satisfied extenuating circumstances established - cross-claim dismissed and trustees for sale appointed - whether appeal as of right - nature of appeal - whether primary judge erred in not being satisfied

Legislation Cited:

Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 66G

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 7.29, 7.36, 36.16, 42.1

Cases Cited:

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34

Cameron v Franks [2023] NSWSC 437

Cameron v Franks (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 929

Cooke v Tweed Shire Council [2024] NSWCA 50

Foundas v Arambatzis (No 3) [2020] NSWCA 87

Franks v Franks [2013] NSWCA 60

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541; [2018] HCA 30

Pham v Gall (2020) 102 NSWLR 269; [2020] NSWCA 116

Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 67 ALJR 841; [1993] HCA 47

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Gregory Franks (Appellant)
Brad Cameron (First Respondent)
Alan Priest (Second Respondent)
Nerryl Doney (Third Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Appellant self-represented
M Cobb-Clark (First Respondent)

Solicitors:
Attwood Marshall Lawyers (First Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/285026
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:

[2023] NSWSC 929

Date of Decision:
11 August 2023
Before:
Robb J
File Number(s):
2022/00010944

JUDGMENT

  1. LEEMING JA: Mr Gregory Michael Franks and Mr Brad Alan Cameron are brothers who have been estranged for some years. They are co-owners of land at Port Macquarie. The first respondent, Mr Cameron, has sought by amended summons to have trustees for sale appointed, and that has occurred (the second and third respondents are the trustees who have filed submitting appearances). The appellant, Mr Franks, had sought by his cross-claim to obtain full ownership of the land. On the date fixed for final hearing of the summons and cross-claim, Mr Franks did not appear. At 9.34am that morning, the primary judge’s Associate received an email which recorded that a friend of Mr Franks had left a telephone message at 9.22am as follows:

The defendant has been taken to hospital and is unable to attend.…

Continue reading Franks v Cameron

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Franks v Cameron [2024] NSWCA 56
Case
[2024] NSWCA 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute over co-owned land. The plaintiff, Franks, sought the appointment of trustees for sale, while the defendant and cross-claimant, Cameron, asserted sole ownership. Cameron did not appear at the hearing before the primary judge, leading to the dismissal of her cross-claim and the appointment of trustees for sale. Cameron sought to appeal this decision.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Cameron had a right of appeal as of right, the nature of that appeal, and whether the primary judge erred in finding that Cameron had not established sufficient extenuating circumstances to justify an adjournment of the hearing.

The Court of Appeal held that Cameron did not have an appeal as of right, as the primary judge's decision to dismiss the cross-claim and appoint trustees for sale was not a final judgment in the sense required for an automatic right of appeal. Furthermore, the Court found that the primary judge had not erred in their assessment of the alleged extenuating circumstances. The primary judge had permitted Cameron an opportunity to establish these circumstances, but ultimately was not satisfied that they were sufficiently established to warrant an adjournment.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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.