Goodridge v Beadle

Case [2017] FCCA 3219


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOODRIDGE & BEADLE [2017] FCCA 3219

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting and property – de facto relationship over 13 years – farming operations.

AFFIDAVITS – Deponent refusing to return to the witness box after being briefly cross-examined – witness swearing up to affidavit but, by reason of her refusal to continue with her cross–examination – majority of her affidavit untested – whether appropriate to exclude the whole of the witness’s evidence – extensive review of authorities – evidence excluded.

FRAUD – No need to specifically call the impugned evidence “fraud” – need to provide particulars of the impugned conduct.

CONTRACT – Rule concerning certainty – void for uncertainty.

SECURITY – Sale “in the ordinary course of business” – what constitutes – no evidence of such a sale on the facts of the case – extensive review of authorities.

EVIDENCE – Adverse inference – rule in Jones v Dunkel.

SHAM TRANSACTION – Elements of.

Legislation:

34 and 35 Hen 8, C 4 (1542)

1874 Insolvency Act (38 Vic No 5)

Bankruptcy Act 1924 (Cth)

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.55

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC(3), 90SM

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), order 16, rule 10
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act1999 (Cth), s.64
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.1.06

Cases cited:

A v A [1976] VR 298
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Alderson v Temple (1768) 98 ER 165
Angelides v James Stedman Henderson’s Sweets Ltd (1927) 40 CLR 43
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper (1981) 148 CLR 337
Ashton v Pratt [2015] NSWCA 12
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) v Rich (2009) 75 ACSR 1
Associated Leisure Ltd (Phonographic Equipment Co) Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1970] 2 QB 450
Axelsen v O’Brien (1949) 80 CLR 219
B v B (1986) FLC 91-758
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Banque Commerciale SA en Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279
Blatch v Archer [1774] 98 ER 969
Brunskill v Sovereign Marine and General Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842
Burns v McFarlane (1940) 64 CLR 108
Clout v Sing [2005] FCA 1058
Coghlan v Cumberland [1898] 1 Ch 704
Cohen v Cohen (1929) 42 CLR 91
Corrigan v Commvault Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd (2011) 192 FCR 71
Curley v Duff (1985) 2 NSW LR 716
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588
Davy v Garrett (1877) 7 Ch D 473
Dearman, Owners of SS Hontestroom v Owners of SS Sagaporack; SS Hontestroom v SS Durham Castle [1927] AC 37
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Downs Distributing Co Pty Ltd v Associated Blue Star Stores Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (1948) 76 CLR 463
Duke Group Ltd (in liquidation) v Pilmer (1998) 27 ACSR 1
Dunne v English (1874) LR 18 Eq 524
Emwest Products v Olifent (1996) 22 ACSR 202
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95
Evans v Secretary,…

Continue reading Goodridge v Beadle

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Goodridge & Beadle [2017] FCCA 3219
Case
[2017] FCCA 3219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Goodridge v Beadle*, heard by Judge Wilson, the dispute concerned parenting and property matters arising from a de facto relationship of over 13 years, which involved farming operations.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether to exclude the entirety of a witness's affidavit evidence when the deponent refused to continue with cross-examination, rendering a majority of her affidavit untested. The court also considered the principles relating to fraud, the certainty of contracts, what constitutes a sale "in the ordinary course of business" for security purposes, and the application of the rule in *Jones v Dunkel* concerning adverse inferences. The elements of a sham transaction were also relevant.

Judge Wilson, after an extensive review of authorities, determined that it was appropriate to exclude the whole of the witness's affidavit evidence due to the untested nature of the majority of its content. The court also found that while it was not necessary to specifically label impugned evidence as "fraud," particulars of the impugned conduct needed to be provided. Regarding security, the court noted that a sale "in the ordinary course of business" requires evidence of such a sale, which was absent on the facts.

The court directed the parties to bring in minutes of orders that give effect to these reasons within 21 days, by email. Otherwise, the further hearing of the proceeding was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) I direct the parties to bring in minutes of orders that give effect to these reasons within 21 days of today’s date, by email.

(2) Otherwise, the further hearing of this proceeding is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

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.