Halford v Halford [No 2] - [2018] WASC 303

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   HALFORD -v- HALFORD [No 2] [2018] WASC 303
CORAM:   ALLANSON J
HEARD:   7 AUGUST 2018
DELIVERED          :   5 OCTOBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2106 of 2016
BETWEEN:   KAI PHILLIP HALFORD
Plaintiff
AND
JEFFREY GEORGE HALFORD
First Defendant
PAMELA DOROTHY HALFORD
Second Defendant
EWART EVAN HALFORD
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for judgment on admission in pleadings - Where money held in trust pursuant to agreement pending determination - Whether proper exercise of discretion

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 30 r 3

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr M L Bennett
First Defendant	:	Dr P R MacMillan
Second Defendant	:	Dr P R MacMillan
Third Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Bennett + Co
First Defendant	:	Pacer Legal
Second Defendant	:	Pacer Legal
Third Defendant	:	No appearance

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

Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties for New South Wales v Buckle [1998] HCA 4; (1998) 192 CLR 226
Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 10; (2003) 56 NSWLR 298
In the Matter of the Trade Marks Act 1955-1958 and In the Matter of Registered Trade Marks 'Certina' and 'Certina DS' (1970) 44 ALJR 191
Moon v Mun [2013] NSWCA 217
Octavo Investments Pty Ltd v Knight [1979] HCA 61; (1979) 144 CLR 360

ALLANSON J:

The plaintiff brings this application for judgment on admissions, pursuant to O 30 r 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).
The plaintiff, the first defendant and the third defendant are brothers. The second defendant is the first defendant's wife.
Until the death of their father in 1996, the plaintiff and the first defendant were members of the Halford Bros Partnership. The other partners were their parents (Mr and Mrs Halford) and two companies. Halford Bros Partnership carried on a farming business at two properties, Glen Iris Farms and Credo Station.
By his will, Mr Halford bequeathed his property on trust for Mrs Halford for life, and after her death for such of his children as survived him as tenants in common in equal shares.
These proceedings stem from a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants about the plaintiff's entitlements following the death of Mrs Halford.
Only the first and second defendants participated in this application, and I refer to them collectively as 'the defendants'.

The claim

For the purposes of these reasons, it is not necessary to detail the relatively complicated claim brought by the plaintiff. Some specific elements of the claim are:
(1)in 1999, Mrs Halford, as trustee of the Trust, appointed the first defendant as a trustee;[1]
(2)the first defendant accepted the appointment;[2] and
(3)from 1999, the first defendant took upon himself and assumed the role of trustee with respect to the Glen Iris Farms Properties and, if not validly appointed, became a trustee de son tort with respect to those properties.[3]
[1] Statement of claim…

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 Halford v Halford [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Halford v Halford [No 2] [2018] WASC 303
Case: [2018] WASC 303
Decision Date: 5 OCTOBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Halford v Halford [No 2] involved the parties, Halford and Halford, with a dispute regarding the handling of money held in trust. The matter was before the Family Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the judge had properly exercised his discretion in granting judgment on admission of a pleading. The plaintiff had made an application for judgment on admission in relation to a sum of money held in trust pending the outcome of a property settlement agreement. The defendant contested the application, arguing that the court had not correctly exercised its discretion in granting the judgment on admission.

The court examined the principles governing the exercise of discretion in such cases, noting that the court must consider whether the admission of the pleading would result in a just and equitable outcome. The court also considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law. It was established that the discretion of the court is to be exercised in a manner that ensures the proceedings are conducted fairly and justly. The court found that the judge had properly exercised his discretion by considering all relevant factors and coming to a conclusion that was supported by the evidence. The court held that the judge's decision to grant judgment on admission was a proper exercise of discretion.

As a result, the application by the defendant to set aside the judgment on admission was dismissed. The court confirmed that the amount of money held in trust would be distributed as per the terms of the property settlement agreement. The final orders of the court were that the application by the defendant to set aside the judgment on admission was dismissed, and that the sum of money held in trust would be distributed in accordance with the terms of the property settlement agreement.

Orders