Legal Research
Cases
Garrick Michael Hawkins v Tom Michael Oates

Garrick Michael Hawkins v Tom Michael Oates

Link copied

Case Copied 15 May 2015 40 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Garrick Michael Hawkins v Tom Michael Oates [2015] NSWSC 571
Hearing dates: 20 and 21 April 2015
Date of orders: 15 May 2015
Decision date: 15 May 2015
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Rein J
Decision:
See [63]

Catchwords: EQUITY- Settlement agreement reached by parties in earlier proceedings - Defendant (in these proceedings) had entered into a Funding Agreement for examination summonses of defendants - Alleged breach of the general release term of the settlement agreement - Alleged breach of implied duty of good faith - Misleading and deceptive conduct claims - Whether loss or damage as a result of impugned conduct established
Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth))
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 191
Blacker v National Australia Bank Ltd [2001] FCA 254
Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969
Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA 55; (1998) 195 CLR 232
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54; (1991) 174 CLR 64
Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553
General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp (1993) 45 FCR 164
Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks (1957) 97 CLR 367
Howe v Teefy (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 301
Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Lam v Ausintel Investments Aust Pty Ltd (1990) ATPR 40-990
LMI Australasia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 74
Macquarie International Health Clinic Pty Ltd v Sydney South West Area Health Service [2010] NSWCA 268
Malabar RSL Sub-Branch Club Pty Ltd v RSL Custodians Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1016
McCrohon v Harith [2010] NSWCA 67
Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd [2010] HCA 31; (2010) 241 CLR 357
NCON Australia Ltd v Spotlight Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 604
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL; Poseidon Ltd v Adelaide Petroleum NL [1994] HCA 4; (1994) 179 CLR 332
South Australia v Johnson (1982) 42 ALR 161
Tomasetti v Brailey [2012] NSWCA 399
Traderight (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2015] NSWCA 94
UBAF Ltd v European American Banking Corporation [1984] QB 713
Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia [1992] HCA 55; (1992) 109 ALR 247
Texts Cited: N/A
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Garrick Hawkins (First Plaintiff)
Evelyn Hawkins (Third Plaintiff)
Pegela Pty Ltd (Fifth Plaintiff)
Tom Michael Oates (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D.B Studdy SC/ K.C Morgan (First, Third and Fifth Plaintiffs)
A.J Sullivan QC/ A.M Hochroth (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Gilbert and Tobin (First, Third and Fifth Plaintiffs)
Henry Davis York (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/79285
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Background to the Present Dispute

In 2009 Mr Tom Oates (“Mr Oates”) commenced proceedings against Mr Garrick Hawkins (“Mr Hawkins”), Mr Scott Tyne (“Mr Tyne”), Mrs…

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 Garrick Michael Hawkins v Tom Michael Oates 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: [2015] NSWSC 571
Decision Date: 15 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Garrick Michael Hawkins v Tom Michael Oates, which came before the Federal Court, involves a dispute arising from a settlement agreement between the parties. Hawkins, the plaintiff, claims that Oates, the defendant, breached the terms of a general release contained within a settlement agreement. This settlement agreement was reached in earlier proceedings, and the plaintiff further alleges that the defendant breached an implied duty of good faith, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and that he suffered loss or damage as a result of the defendant's actions. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant breached the general release term of the settlement agreement, whether there was a breach of the implied duty of good faith, and if the plaintiff's claims of misleading and deceptive conduct and resultant loss or damage were substantiated.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant breached the general release term by entering into a Funding Agreement for examination summonses of the defendants, whether there was a breach of the implied duty of good faith, and whether the plaintiff established misleading and deceptive conduct claims and resultant loss or damage. The court considered the terms of the settlement agreement, the nature of the implied duty of good faith, and the requirements for proving misleading and deceptive conduct under Australian consumer law. The plaintiff needed to demonstrate that the defendant's actions were misleading or deceptive, that the misleading or deceptive conduct occurred in trade or commerce, and that the plaintiff suffered a loss or damage as a result of the conduct.

In its decision, the court found that the defendant did not breach the general release term of the settlement agreement, as the Funding Agreement did not fall within the scope of the release. The court also held that there was no breach of the implied duty of good faith. Regarding the misleading and deceptive conduct claims, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant's conduct was misleading or deceptive, and as such, there was no loss or damage caused by the defendant's actions. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

The Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the settlement agreement and the absence of evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct.

Orders