Haggarty v Wood (No 2)

Case [2015] QSC 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Haggarty v Wood (No 2) [2015] QSC 244

PARTIES:

JOHN PETER JOSEPH HAGGARTY
(first plaintiff/first respondent)
AND
JUSTIN THOMAS HAGGARTY, SCOTT JON HAGGARTY, DARREN GEOFFREY HAGGARTY, JOANNE KELLI DAVIS AND BRETT JOHN DAVIS
(second plaintiffs/second respondents)
v
JOAN WOOD
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO:

BS5303 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 June 2015

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDERS:

The order of the court is that:

1.   The plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed.

2.   The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where the plaintiffs allege that the testator entered into a testamentary contract to bequeath 5 lots to the respondents – where a company was the registered proprietor of the 5 lots – where the testator transferred the shares to himself and the defendant jointly – where the company sold the 5 lots during the testator’s life – where the shares in the company passed by survivorship to the defendant – where the plaintiffs claim a constructive trust over the shares to the extent of their contributions in relation to the assets and value of the company – whether there should be summary judgment for the defendant

Judicature Act 1876 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 171, 293
Rules of the Supreme Court 1883 (UK), o 14
Rules of the Supreme Court 1900 (Qld), o 18, 22, 29, 38

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464; [1939] HCA 23, followed
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1, cited
Eastgate v Equity Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1964) 110 CLR 275; [1964] HCA 14, referred to
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101; [1999] HCA, cited
Haggarty v Wood [2013] QSC 327, related
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45, considered
Riches v Hogben [1985] 2 Qd R 292, referred to
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22; [1896] UKHL 1, followed
Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic (2007) 231 CLR 160; [2007] HCA 1, followed
The Cloverdell Lumber Company Pty Ltd v Abbott (1924) 34 CLR 122; [1924] HCA 4, considered
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598; [1993] HCA 57, referred to

COUNSEL:

D A Savage QC with C Brewer for the applicant
K C Fleming QC with A Marks for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McNamara & Associates for the applicant
Walker Pender for the respondent

  1. JACKSON J: On 29 November 2013, I made orders in this proceeding, including an order striking out the statement of claim.[1]   Since then, the statement of claim has been amended.  The defendant now applies for an order for summary judgment or striking out the second further amended statement of claim (”FASOC2”).

    [1]

Continue reading Haggarty v Wood (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Haggarty v Wood (No 2) [2015] QSC 244
Case
[2015] QSC 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haggarty v Wood (No 2) involved the plaintiffs alleging that the testator had entered into a testamentary contract to bequeath five lots to the respondents. The dispute centred around a company that was the registered proprietor of the five lots, which the testator had transferred to himself and the defendant jointly. During the testator's lifetime, the company sold the five lots, and the shares in the company passed by survivorship to the defendant. The plaintiffs sought to establish a constructive trust over the shares to the extent of their contributions in relation to the assets and value of the company. The court was required to determine whether summary judgment should be granted in favour of the defendant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' claim for a constructive trust over the shares in the company, based on their contributions to the company's value, was valid. The court examined the nature of the testamentary contract and the circumstances surrounding the transfer and sale of the five lots. The plaintiffs argued that the shares should be subject to a constructive trust as a result of their contributions to the company. The defendant, however, contended that the plaintiffs had no valid claim to the shares and that summary judgment should be granted in his favour.

The court held that the plaintiffs' claim was not valid and dismissed the plaintiffs' application. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a basis for a constructive trust over the shares in question. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the shares should be held on trust for their benefit. Furthermore, the court noted that the sale of the five lots by the company during the testator's lifetime and the subsequent transfer of the shares by survivorship to the defendant were significant factors in its decision. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a valid cause of action against the defendant.

The court's final orders were that the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed and that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding. This outcome reflects the court's determination that the plaintiffs' allegations were not substantiated and that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. The plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs 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.