Goodwin v Goodwin

Case [2004] QCA 50

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Goodwin v Goodwin & Anor [2004] QCA 50

PARTIES:

ELMA AGNES GOODWIN
(applicant/respondent)
v
SHANE CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN
(first respondent/appellant)
KERRI GAYLE GOODWIN

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9057 of 2003
DC No 4 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

Application for Reopening (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

27 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 February 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and McMurdo J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed with costs

2.   Application to reopen refused

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – PARTITION OF LAND – STATUTORY TRUST FOR SALE OR PARTITION – QUEENSLAND – where trustees appointed under s 38 of the Property Law Act for the sale of land which the appellant and his wife co-owned with the respondent as tenants in common – whether there was any evidence before court which enlivened discretion not to appoint trustees -  whether there was a binding contract for the respondent to sell her share of the land to the appellant and if so whether it would affect the exercise of discretion

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 38

COUNSEL:

No appearance for the appellant

L A Stephens for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

 No appearance for the appellant

G J Buckley & Associates for the respondent

McPHERSON JA:  The appellant did not appear when this matter was called three times at the listed hour of 10.15 a.m. this morning.  It has, for some weeks at least now, been listed for that time on this day and the appellant is fully aware of it.  He has been sporadically communicating with the Registry insisting to the Appeals Registrar, but without success, that the hearing of this matter, which is his own appeal, should be adjourned to some date in the future.

Apparently, he made some such statement again last evening, or possibly this morning, urging that the appeal now be heard at a later time in the day to suit his convenience.  He has a record of similar behaviour at past hearings and a record also of evading service of documents in this matter when the other party wished to effect service on him.  He has also complained, though not in the form of material by affidavit, that the appeal is causing him stress; but, since it is his appeal, that may fairly be regarded as a self inflicted wound.

He also has complained, judging by some of the documents we have been favoured with in this matter, that the research facilities available to him in the rural area in which he lives do not enable him to prepare his appeal fully; but it will, I am afraid, be a long time before the public library at Wondai, or it may be Murgon, is upgraded to the level of the Harvard Law School, and the determination of the appeal cannot wait until…

Continue reading Goodwin v Goodwin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Goodwin v Goodwin [2004] QCA 50
Case
[2004] QCA 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved a dispute over the partition of a property owned by the appellant, his wife, and the respondent as tenants in common. The appellant had sought to have the property sold, or alternatively, partitioned, in accordance with the provisions of the Property Law Act. The respondent, however, contested the necessity for such action, leading to the appointment of trustees under section 38 of the Act to oversee the sale or partition of the property. The court's task was to determine whether there was any evidence that would have justified a departure from the statutory requirements for appointing trustees, and if so, to what extent a prior agreement to sell the respondent's share to the appellant might influence the exercise of the court's discretion.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was any evidence that would have led to a different outcome in appointing trustees for the sale or partition of the property, and if a binding contract existed between the parties for the sale of the respondent's share. The court had to consider whether such a contract would affect the discretion to appoint trustees under the statute. The court needed to balance the statutory framework with the equities of the situation, particularly focusing on whether any special circumstances existed that would warrant a deviation from the statutory procedure.

The court concluded that there was no evidence presented that would have altered the discretion to appoint trustees under the statute. The court found that the mere existence of a contract to sell the respondent's share did not necessarily bind the court in its decision-making process. The statutory provisions for the appointment of trustees were clear and provided a robust framework that did not allow for deviation based on such agreements unless there were compelling reasons. The court dismissed the appeal and refused the application to reopen the case, affirming that the appointment of trustees was in accordance with the law and no special circumstances were present to warrant a different outcome.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal with costs and to refuse the application to reopen the proceedings. This decision upheld the statutory process for the sale or partition of jointly owned property, reinforcing the principle that the court's discretion is limited in the absence of compelling evidence or circumstances that would justify a departure from the statutory requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed with costs

2. Application to reopen refused

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.