Hampton v Richardson - [2009] QDC 139

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hampton & Ors v Richardson [2009] QDC 139

PARTIES:

Geoffrey Robert Hampton
(first plaintiff)

Paul Damian Wyatt
(second plaintiff)

Anthony Lloyd Herford
(third plaintiff)

v

Neil Charles Richardson
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1473 of 2008

DIVISION:

Applications

PROCEEDING:

Applications to strike out statement of claim; or enter judgment for the defendant; or to permanently stay the proceedings.

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 May 2009

JUDGE:

Kingham DCJ

ORDER:

1. Judgment is entered for the Defendant against the First and Third Plaintiffs.

2. The First and Third Plaintiffs are to pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings assessed on a standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- application made pursuant to r 292 UCPR - where substantial delay between alleged event and the action being brought – where defendant gravely prejudiced in his defence – where lengthy delay not satisfactorily explained where serious delay constitutes a defence to the equitable claim – where no need for a trial

APPLICATION – APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT – application made pursuant to r 171 UCPR – where substantial delay between alleged event and the action being brought – where fraud pleaded to defeat defence of limitation of action – whether abuse of process

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 27 (2), s 38

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171 (1)(a), r 293.

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996-1997] 186 CLR 541, cited

The Duke Group Ltd (in Liq) v. Alamain Investments Ltd [2003] SASC 415, cited.

Orr v Ford (1989) 167 CLR 316, cited.

Spry, I.C.F. Principles of Equitable Remedies: Specific Performance, Injunctions, Rectification and Equitable Damages (6th ed, 2001)

COUNSEL:

D J Campbell SC with P White for the Defendant
Mr Hampton represented himself
No appearance for the other Plaintiffs

SOLICITORS:

Richardson McGhie for the Defendant

Almost 2 decades ago, when interest rates in Australia were high, John Keating, a client of the defendant Mr Richardson, a solicitor, devised the Hadkeato Scheme. It was a get rich quick scheme to exploit the differential in interest rates charged on loans in Australia and offshore. Mr Keating introduced the scheme to Mr Hampton and the other two plaintiffs at a meeting in the office of Mr Robson, a real estate agent, in July 1990. Funds borrowed offshore at a lower interest rate than could be obtained here were to be lent in Australia at market rates. The difference in interest paid offshore and interest income received in Australia was to return a windfall profit within a short period. Mr Keating gave the plaintiffs the opportunity to participate by contributing to a “blocking fee” to facilitate the funds being raised offshore.

They took up the offer. Their contributions were paid into the trust account of Mr Richardson’s firm. There was no windfall. Mr Hampton and Mr Wyatt received back only a portion of their contribution. Mr Herford received…

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 Hampton v Richardson

Details

AGLC: Hampton v Richardson [2009] QDC 139
Case: [2009] QDC 139
Decision Date: 28 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Hampton v Richardson unfolded as an application for summary judgment and an application to strike out certain claims. The plaintiffs, including Hampton and others, brought claims against Richardson and others, primarily concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and fraud. The crux of the dispute centred around whether the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred and whether the defendants were prejudiced by the delay in bringing the action. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with deciding these preliminary issues before delving into the merits of the case.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the substantial delay in bringing the action constituted a valid defence, particularly under equitable principles, and whether the delay prejudiced the defendants' ability to defend themselves. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the application to strike out certain claims, particularly those involving fraud, was an abuse of process. The court had to weigh the principles of equity and fairness against the statutory provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, particularly rules 292 and 171.

The court found that the delay in bringing the action was significant and not satisfactorily explained, leading to a grave prejudice for the defendants in mounting an adequate defence. The court held that the principles of equity warranted the dismissal of the claims of the first and third plaintiffs, as the delay was so substantial that it constituted a defence to the equitable claims. Furthermore, the court ruled that the application to strike out certain claims was not an abuse of process, given the serious allegations of fraud. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant, and the claims of the first and third plaintiffs were dismissed.

The final orders of the court included the entry of judgment for the defendant against the first and third plaintiffs, dismissing their claims. Additionally, the court ordered that the first and third plaintiffs were to pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings, assessed on a standard basis. This outcome reflects the court's determination that the equitable principles and procedural fairness necessitated the dismissal of the claims due to the delay and the lack of satisfactory explanation for that delay.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment is entered for the Defendant against the First and Third Plaintiffs.

2. The First and Third Plaintiffs are to pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings assessed on a standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Hampton & Ors v Richardson [2009] QDC 139
PARTIES:	Geoffrey Robert Hampton (first plaintiff) Paul Damian Wyatt (second plaintiff) Anthony Lloyd Herford (third plaintiff) v Neil Charles Richardson (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1473 of 2008
DIVISION:	Applications
PROCEEDING:	Applications to strike out statement of claim; or enter judgment for the defendant; or to permanently stay the proceedings.
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 May 2009
JUDGE:	Kingham DCJ
ORDER:	1. Judgment is entered for the Defendant against the First and Third Plaintiffs. 2. The First and Third Plaintiffs are to pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings assessed on a standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- application made pursuant to r 292 UCPR - where substantial delay between alleged event and the action being brought – where defendant gravely prejudiced in his defence – where lengthy delay not satisfactorily explained where serious delay constitutes a defence to the equitable claim – where no need for a trial APPLICATION – APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT – application made pursuant to r 171 UCPR – where substantial delay between alleged event and the action being brought – where fraud pleaded to defeat defence of limitation of action – whether abuse of process Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 27 (2), s 38 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171 (1)(a), r 293. Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996-1997] 186 CLR 541, cited The Duke Group Ltd (in Liq) v. Alamain Investments Ltd [2003] SASC 415, cited. Orr v Ford (1989) 167 CLR 316, cited. Spry, I.C.F. Principles of Equitable Remedies: Specific Performance, Injunctions, Rectification and Equitable Damages (6th ed, 2001)
COUNSEL:	D J Campbell SC with P White for the Defendant Mr Hampton represented himself No appearance for the other Plaintiffs
SOLICITORS:	Richardson McGhie for the Defendant