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
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gregory Franks (Appellant)
Brad Cameron (First Respondent)
Alan Priest (Second Respondent)
Nerryl Doney (Third Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Appellant self-represented
M Cobb-Clark (First Respondent)
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:
- Date of Decision:
- 11 August 2023
- Before:
- Robb J
- File Number(s):
- 2022/00010944
JUDGMENT
-
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
- AGLC
- Franks v Cameron [2024] NSWCA 56
- Case
- [2024] NSWCA 56
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.