Hansen v Patrick

Case [2018] QCA 298

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hansen & Anor v Patrick & Ors [2018] QCA 298

PARTIES:

ALLAN JOHN HANSEN
(first appellant/first cross-respondent)
BANCHICK PTY LIMITED
ACN 011 006 018
(second appellant/second cross-respondent)
v
ROBERT WILLIAM PATRICK
(first respondent/first cross-appellant)
KATHRYN LOUISE PATRICK
(second respondent/second cross-appellant)
FIREHOSE PTY LIMITED
ACN 054 417 757
(third respondent/third cross-appellant)
PATRICK & HANSEN PTY LTD
ACN 010 883 708
(fourth respondent/fourth cross-appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1877 of 2018
SC No 800 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Townsville – [2018] QSC 7 (North J)

DELIVERED ON:

30 October 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 October 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser and Morrison JJA

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   A retrial is ordered.

3.   The cross-appeal is dismissed.

4.   Parties to file submissions about costs by 4 pm Friday 9 November 2018, to be determined on the papers.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – where the appellants’ claim for damages for fraud, negligent misstatement, breach of fiduciary duty and contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) was dismissed – where the first appellant alleged that he sold his interests in the fourth respondent and a related unit trust in reliance upon representations made by the first respondent as to the value of certain pieces of land owned by their jointly owned company – where the learned primary judge rejected the entirety of the first appellant’s evidence given at trial – where his Honour found that the first appellant had attempted to deliberately deceive the court – where no submission was made by counsel for the respondents at first instance that the first appellant had given his evidence dishonestly or had committed perjury – where the findings of dishonesty on the part of the first appellant were erroneous – whether the erroneous findings as to the first appellant’s dishonesty were essential links in the learned trial judge’s reasoning, such that his Honour’s orders ought to be set aside

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – where the cross-respondents alleged, at trial, that part of the purchase price had been withheld by the cross-appellants in order to meet a tax liability – where the cross-appellants’ plea admitted that the money had been retained and did not put in issue that the liability had been met – where the learned trial judge raised a question with the parties, after the evidence had concluded, concerning the identity of the proper parties to the claim for the withheld sum – where the first cross-respondent and second cross-respondent executed a deed, with the effect that the right to recover the money was assigned to the first cross-respondent, after the evidence had finished and sought to reopen the case in order to tender the deed – where the learned trial judge granted leave over the…

Continue reading Hansen v Patrick

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hansen v Patrick [2018] QCA 298
Case
[2018] QCA 298
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hansen v Patrick, the appellants, including the first appellant, brought a claim for damages against the respondents for fraud, negligent misstatement, breach of fiduciary duty, and contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The trial judge dismissed the claim, rejecting the first appellant’s evidence and finding that he had attempted to deceive the court. The appellants appealed the dismissal, arguing that the trial judge's findings of dishonesty were erroneous and essential to the dismissal of the claim. The respondents cross-appealed on the basis that the trial judge should not have allowed the case to be reopened to tender a deed assigning the right to recover a withheld sum.

The central issue before the court was whether the erroneous findings of dishonesty on the part of the first appellant were so integral to the trial judge's reasoning that they necessitated setting aside the orders. The court needed to determine if these findings were fundamental to the dismissal of the claim. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in allowing the case to be reopened to tender the deed assigning the right to recover the withheld sum. The respondents argued that the trial judge's decision to reopen the case was an abuse of discretion.

The court found that the trial judge’s findings of dishonesty were indeed erroneous and played a crucial role in the dismissal of the claim. The court held that the erroneous findings were essential links in the trial judge’s reasoning, thereby necessitating the setting aside of the orders. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the case to be reopened. The court held that the reopening was permissible as the deed was material to the issues in the case and its admission did not unfairly prejudice the parties.

The appeal was allowed, and a retrial was ordered. The cross-appeal was dismissed. The parties were directed to file submissions about costs by a specified deadline.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. A retrial is ordered.

3. The cross-appeal is dismissed.

4. Parties to file submissions about costs by 4 pm Friday 9 November 2018, to be determined on the papers.

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.