Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd v Hanson - [2018] QSC 189

[2018] QSC 189

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

BOND J

SC No 4392 of 2015

GOOMBOORIAN TRANSPORT PTY LTD ACN 011 054 658	First Plaintiff
J & M LOGHANDLING PTY LTD ACN 011 054 667	Second Plaintiff
BELLING INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 123 710 734	Third Plaintiff
GOOMBOORIAN LOGGING PTY LTD ACN 076 970	Fourth Plaintiff
LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD ACN 086 875 845	Fifth Plaintiff
EMMERDALE FARMING PTY LTD ACN 151 515 909	Sixth Plaintiff
JILRAY PTY LTD ACN 058 181 463 J & M FARMING PTY LTD ACN 086 991 291 J & M FARMING PTY LTD and LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD ABN 89 152 178 639 JOHN GERHARD BELLING MARLENE ANNE BELLING ESTATE OF NORMA RENEE HANSON, DECEASED	Seventh Plaintiff Eighth Plaintiff Ninth Plaintiff Tenth Plaintiff Eleventh Plaintiff First Defendant
DOROTHY MAUREEN HANSON	Second Defendant
NORMAN RICHARD HANSON	Third Defendant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 14 AUGUST 2018

JUDGMENT

BOND J: The following oral judgment is to be read in conjunction with my first decision, Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd v Hanson [2018] QSC 135, and my decision this morning, Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd v Hanson [2018] QSC 182.

As is recited in the second judgment, I had, based upon my reading of written submissions made on behalf of the second and third defendants, apprehended that they had no objection to doing everything necessary to cause the monies which had been held within First Colonial Superannuation Funds to be paid to the third and sixth plaintiffs. It was for those reasons that I made the observation at [25](d)(i) that the second and third defendants had advanced submissions, the effect of which was they acknowledged that the monies in the superannuation accounts had been preserved and could be transferred. I determined not to make such an order because it seemed that there was no dispute that the transfer would happen, and therefore no need for an order to be made. Similarly, in relation to the transfer of the motorcar discussed at [24], especially at [24](e).

It was made clear during the course of argument this morning that the second and third defendants’ position is more properly understood in this way: first, they do not oppose an order requiring them to do those things being made because they recognise that it is appropriate as an appropriate sequel to the order I have made in relation to the proceeds of the Asteron Life insurance policy, but, second, they did not intend to convey that they did not oppose actually transferring the money and the car at this time. The reasoning in relation to that is that they have, by evidence before me this morning, proved they have filed an appeal consequent upon my first judgment, and they foreshadowed that if I made orders requiring the monies to be paid out and the car to be delivered, they would seek a stay of such orders.

In those circumstances, there is no merit in refusing to make an order…

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 Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd v Hanson 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: [2018] QSC 189
Decision Date: 14 AUGUST 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland was presented with a case involving multiple plaintiffs who were seeking various remedies against multiple defendants. The plaintiffs, including Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd and others, alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and other related claims against the Hansons, who were the second and third defendants in the case. The dispute primarily revolved around the distribution of assets, including proceeds from an insurance policy and funds held in superannuation accounts.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants should be required to transfer specific assets to the plaintiffs and whether statutory trustees should be appointed for the sale of the family home. The court also needed to consider the defendants' appeal against earlier orders and the implications of that appeal for the enforcement of the current orders.

In delivering the judgment, Bond J clarified that despite earlier indications, the second and third defendants were not opposing the orders requiring the transfer of certain assets but were instead seeking a stay of those orders pending the outcome of their appeal. Given the defendants' financial position, as revealed in an affidavit presented during the proceedings, the court found it appropriate to make the orders for the transfer of funds and the appointment of trustees for the sale of the family home. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce their rights immediately, and the appointment of trustees would facilitate the resolution of the dispute by ensuring a fair distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the property.

The court made several orders, including that the second and third defendants must transfer certain funds to the third and sixth plaintiffs, deliver a motor vehicle to those plaintiffs, and appoint trustees for the sale of the family home. The court also reserved the costs incurred after the initial orders were pronounced and scheduled a directions hearing to determine if any further relief was necessary.

Orders