GROVES & ANOR -v- GROVES & ORS [2004] WASC 79

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASC 79
Case No:	CIV:1274/2004	Heard:	5 APRIL 2004
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	5/04/04
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KENNETH GRAHAM GROVES BARBARA JOY GROVES MURRAY STANLEY GROVES VICKI GROVES HILDA MARY GROVES
Catchwords:	Partnership Dissolution and winding up Appointment of receiver and manager Family farming properties Relationship between parties intractable Virtually impossible for dissolution of partnership to be satisfactorily managed by parties Partnership assets in danger and parties in serious dispute Creditor likely to appoint receiver and manager Court appointed receiver and manager preferable
Legislation:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 420 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 51
Case References:	Wedge v Wedge (1994) 12 WAR 489 D'Souza (as trustees for the D'Souza Family Trust) v Aaronisle Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 111 United Builders Pty Ltd v Mutual Acceptance Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 673

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : GROVES & ANOR -v- GROVES & ORS [2004] WASC 79 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 5 APRIL 2004 DELIVERED : 5 APRIL 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 1274 of 2004 BETWEEN : KENNETH GRAHAM GROVES

First Plaintiff

BARBARA JOY GROVES

Second Plaintiff

AND

MURRAY STANLEY GROVES

First Defendant

VICKI GROVES

Second Defendant

HILDA MARY GROVES

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Partnership - Dissolution and winding up - Appointment of receiver and manager - Family farming properties - Relationship between parties intractable - Virtually impossible for dissolution of partnership to be satisfactorily managed by parties - Partnership assets in danger and parties in serious dispute - Creditor

(Page 2)

likely to appoint receiver and manager - Court appointed receiver and manager preferable

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 420

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 51

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr S K Shepherd

Second Plaintiff : Mr S K Shepherd

First Defendant : Mr P S Murray

Second Defendant : Mr P S Murray

Third Defendant : Mr A M Dzieciol

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

Second Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

First Defendant : Marks & Sands

Second Defendant : Marks & Sands

Third Defendant : Fiocco's Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Wedge v Wedge (1994) 12 WAR 489

(Page 3)

Case(s) also cited:

D'Souza (as trustees for the D'Souza Family Trust) v Aaronisle Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 111
United Builders Pty Ltd v Mutual Acceptance Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 673

(Page 4)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This matter comes before me now as an application by the plaintiffs for an order that a receiver and manager be appointed in respect of the partnership which existed between them and the defendants and the deceased Stanley George Groves.

2 The action itself was commenced by writ of summons filed on 27 February 2004 in which the application for a dissolution of…

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.

Continue reading Groves v Groves

Details

AGLC: Groves v Groves [2004] WASC 79
Case: [2004] WASC 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia was presented with an application from Kenneth Graham Groves and Barbara Joy Groves, seeking the appointment of a receiver and manager over a family partnership that involved farming properties and assets. The defendants in the case were Murray Stanley Groves, Vicki Groves, and Hilda Mary Groves. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appointment of a receiver and manager was necessary and appropriate given the intractable disputes among the partners and the potential jeopardy of the partnership's assets.

The court determined that the circumstances warranted the appointment of a receiver and manager. The relationship between the parties had deteriorated to the point where it was virtually impossible for them to manage the partnership's dissolution satisfactorily. The partners were in serious dispute over the financial management and disclosure of the partnership's records. The potential for a creditor to appoint its own receiver, which could adversely impact the business, further underscored the need for a court-appointed receiver. The court cited precedents such as Wedge v Wedge, which supported the appointment of a receiver in cases of serious disputes and endangered assets.

In granting the application, the court emphasized the importance of a court-appointed receiver to act in the best interests of all parties involved, as opposed to a lender-appointed receiver who might prioritize the interests of the lender. The court's decision aligned with the general principle that a receiver should be appointed to manage the winding up of a partnership's affairs when disputes among partners render effective management by the partners themselves impossible. The court appointed Giovanni Murrizio Carrello as the receiver and manager, granting him the necessary powers to manage the partnership's assets and affairs.

Orders