SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd & Ors v Hanson & Ors [2018] QSC 135
PARTIES:
GOOMBOORIAN TRANSPORT PTY LTD ACN 011 054 658
(first plaintiff)
AND
J & M LOGHANDLING PTY LTD ACN 011 054 667
(second plaintiff)
AND
BELLING INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 123 710 734
(third plaintiff)
AND
GOOMBOORIAN LOGGING PTY LTD ACN 076 970 995
(fourth plaintiff)
AND
LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD ACN 086 875 845
(fifth plaintiff)
AND
EMMERDALE FARMING PTY LTD ACN 151 515 909
(sixth plaintiff)
AND
JILRAY PTY LTD ACN 058 181 463
(seventh plaintiff)
AND
J & M FARMING PTY LTD ACN 086 991 291
(eighth plaintiff)
AND
J & M FARMING PTY LTD and LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD ABN 89 152 178 639
(ninth plaintiff)
AND
JOHN GERHARD BELLING
(tenth plaintiff)
AND
MARLENE ANNE BELLING
(eleventh plaintiff)
v
ESTATE OF NORMA RENEE HANSON, DECEASED
(first defendant)
AND
DOROTHY MAUREEN HANSON
(second defendant)
AND
NORMAN RICHARD HANSON
(third defendant)
FILE NO/S:
SC No 4392 of 2015
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
DELIVERED ON:
12 June 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
3 April 2017; 4 April 2017; 5 April 2017; 6 April 2017;
30 January 2018JUDGE:
Bond J
ORDER:
The orders of the Court are:
1. I will hear the plaintiffs further on the form of order which should be made in relation to the first defendant.
2. It is declared that the proceeds of the Asteron term life policy 81318923 were received by the second and third defendants as trustees for the third and sixth plaintiffs.
3. I will hear the parties further on the plaintiffs’ claims to the relief identified at paragraphs B, C and D of the claims to relief made in the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim.
4. The plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in respect of the BT death benefit amount is refused.
5. It is declared that the second and third defendants hold their interest in the home located at 22 Parkland Drive, Chatsworth, subject to an equitable lien in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $12,622.22.
6. The plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in respect of the chattels listed at paragraph [110](e) of the Court’s reasons for judgment is refused.
7. The plaintiffs’ application to re-open the case is dismissed.
8. I will hear the parties as to the costs of the application to re-open and of the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – TRACING TRUST PROPERTY – IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY – where employee misappropriated funds from employer – where employee held a life insurance policy – whether certain premiums on the life insurance policy were paid using stolen funds
EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – TRACING TRUST PROPERTY – GENERALLY – where employee misappropriated funds from employer – where employee used misappropriated funds to pay premiums on life insurance policy – where employee now deceased – where proceeds of life insurance policy were paid out to the employee’s parents – whether…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] QSC 135
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court addressed several legal issues, including whether the employer could trace the stolen funds into the life insurance policy proceeds, specifically if the policy was construed to provide cover on a month-by-month basis. The court also considered whether the whole of the proceeds paid out from the life insurance policy were referable to the payment of the final premium. Furthermore, the court examined whether the employee purchased chattels for their parents, and if so, whether a declaration should be made that the chattels were held on trust by the employee’s parents for the employer. The court further needed to determine if the trustee entity had erred in paying the death benefit to the employee’s parents as dependents rather than to the employee’s legal personal representative and if a declaration should be made that the death benefit was available to settle the debts of the employee’s estate. Lastly, the court considered whether the plaintiffs' application to reopen their case to tender certain documents should be allowed.
The court concluded that the proceeds of the life insurance policy were held by the employee's parents as trustees for the employer. The court dismissed the claim regarding the superannuation death benefit payment, finding no error in the trustee's decision. The court also dismissed the claim for declaratory relief regarding certain chattels. The application to reopen the case to tender additional documents was denied as the documents were not deemed probative of any claim in issue. The court ordered that the employee's parents hold their interest in a specific property subject to an equitable lien in favour of the employer. The court reserved decision on certain claims and ordered further hearings to determine the form of order regarding the first defendant and to consider the remaining claims for relief.
The final orders included a declaration that the proceeds of the life insurance policy were held as trustees for the employer, an equitable lien on a property held by the employee's parents, and the dismissal of the claims for relief regarding certain chattels and the superannuation death benefit. The application to reopen the case was also dismissed, and the court reserved decision on the costs of the application and the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
1. I will hear the plaintiffs further on the form of order which should be made in relation to the first defendant.
2. It is declared that the proceeds of the Asteron term life policy 81318923 were received by the second and third defendants as trustees for the third and sixth plaintiffs.
3. I will hear the parties further on the plaintiffs’ claims to the relief identified at paragraphs B, C and D of the claims to relief made in the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim.
4. The plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in respect of the BT death benefit amount is refused.
5. It is declared that the second and third defendants hold their interest in the home located at 22 Parkland Drive, Chatsworth, subject to an equitable lien in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $12,622.22.
6. The plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in respect of the chattels listed at paragraph [110](e) of the Court’s reasons for judgment is refused.
7. The plaintiffs’ application to re-open the case is dismissed.
8. I will hear the parties as to the costs of the application to re-open and of the proceeding.
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.