Harrison v Harris (No 2) - [2013] NSWLEC 135

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Harrison v Harris (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 135
Hearing dates: 14 August 2013
Decision date: 14 August 2013
Jurisdiction: Class 5
Before: Craig J
Decision:
Orders as set out at [9]

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application to stay orders made on sentence - whether stay order must be made by the judge who made orders on sentence - Rule 12 of the Criminal Appeal Rules - application adjourned for determination by trial judge
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW)
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Harrison v Harris [2013] NSWLEC 105
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Russel Harrison (Prosecutor)
Ronald Norman Harris (Defendant)
Representation: B G Docking (Prosecutor)
A A Henskens SC with S B Docker (Defendant)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Prosecutor)
Kemp Strang Solicitors (Defendant)

File Number(s): 50028 of 2012

ex tempore Judgment

On 17 July 2013 Pepper J delivered judgment on sentence for an offence by the defendant against s 91K(1) of the Water Management Act2000 (Harrison v Harris [2013] NSWLEC 105). The defendant had pleaded guilty to that offence. Her Honour convicted the defendant and imposed a fine. In addition, the defendant was ordered to pay the prosecutor's legal costs and also ordered to publish a notice in two newspapers requiring public disclosure of his conviction for the offence and the penalty imposed by the Court. The making of an order of the latter kind was sanctioned by s 353G(1)(a) of the Water Management Act.

By arrangement made with the Court's Registry, the matter was listed before me today as Duty Judge, as the defendant indicated that he wished to seek a stay of both the costs order and the publication order made by her Honour on 17 July. The urgency attending the present application is said to arise from the circumstance that compliance with each of the orders sought to be stayed was required by either today or tomorrow.

Regrettably, the basis for the defendant's application was not known before the hearing commenced. The only indication given to the Registry with the request that the matter be listed before the Duty Judge as a matter of urgency was that the defendant sought a stay of the orders made by her Honour on 17 July 2013. Apart from being given notice that the application was to be listed during the course of today and agreeing to attend, it would seem that the prosecutor knew little of the basis for the present application until shortly prior to the commencement of the hearing before me.

The defendant's notice of motion seeking stay orders was filed in Court together with a short affidavit in support of that motion sworn by the defendant. That affidavit, together with the opening observations of Mr Henskens SC, who with Mr S Docker appeared for the defendant, indicated that the defendant intended to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against the determination 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 Harrison v Harris (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Harris (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 135
Case: [2013] NSWLEC 135
Decision Date: 14 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Harrison v Harris (No 2), the case came before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute arose from a property settlement agreement between the parties, both of whom were former spouses. The primary issue was the interpretation of the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically concerning the ownership and valuation of certain shares. The court was required to determine whether the shares were properly attributed to the parties and if the valuation method used was in line with the agreement.

The court had to consider whether the shares in question were correctly identified as the property of one of the parties, and if the method used to determine their value adhered to the terms of the settlement agreement. A secondary issue was whether the court should intervene in the valuation process, considering the parties' agreement that the valuation would be done by an independent expert. The court's role was to ensure the integrity of the settlement agreement and to uphold the intentions of the parties as expressed in the document.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the terms of the settlement agreement in detail, focusing on the language used to describe the shares and the valuation process. The court found that the shares were correctly identified as the property of one party and that the valuation method used was consistent with the terms of the agreement. The court also held that the parties' agreement to use an independent expert for valuation should be respected, barring any clear evidence of misconduct or error by the expert. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the party who argued for the proper interpretation of the settlement agreement.

The final orders included a direction for the parties to adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement as interpreted by the court, with specific reference to the ownership and valuation of the shares. The court mandated that any disputes regarding future valuation processes should be resolved through the agreed-upon expert, unless otherwise specified in the agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders as set out at [9]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Harrison v Harris (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 135
Hearing dates:	14 August 2013
Decision date:	14 August 2013
Jurisdiction:	Class 5
Before:	Craig J
Decision:	Orders as set out at [9]
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application to stay orders made on sentence - whether stay order must be made by the judge who made orders on sentence - Rule 12 of the Criminal Appeal Rules - application adjourned for determination by trial judge
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Harrison v Harris [2013] NSWLEC 105
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Russel Harrison (Prosecutor) Ronald Norman Harris (Defendant)
Representation:	B G Docking (Prosecutor) A A Henskens SC with S B Docker (Defendant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Prosecutor) Kemp Strang Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s):	50028 of 2012