Legal Research
Cases
Holt v Forehan

Holt v Forehan

Case [2006] VSC 148 21 April 2006

Jurisdiction

Burden of Proof

Cross-vesting

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
PRACTICE COURT

No. 9543 of 2005

DIANA JILLIAN HOLT	Plaintiff
v
JOHN TERRY FOREHAN	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 APRIL 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 APRIL 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	HOLT v FOREHAN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 148

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to transfer proceedings to Western Australia - Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987, s.5 – Whether in the interests of justice to transfer – Burden of proof – Role of burden of proof where factors are evenly balanced – Different principles to those in forum non conveniens applications - BHP Billiton Ltd v Schulz (2004) 211 ALJR 523, Ewins v BHP Billiton Ltd [2005] VSC 4, McLeod v Munro [2005] VSC 375 and Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711 per Rogers AJA considered – Application to transfer granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Dr D. Kovacs	Taussig Cherrie & Associates
For the Defendant	Mr I. Jones	Rigby Cooke Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

This proceeding was brought in the Supreme Court of Victoria by writ issued on 24 November 2005. By her statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges that, at different intervals over some years, she and the defendant lived in a de facto relationship as man and wife; and that between the years 1985 and 1998, a period covering those intervals, the two enjoyed what the amended statement of claim describes as "a committed personal relationship." They were then residents of Western Australia. By the amended statement of claim, the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant pay to her, pursuant to an equity of acquiescence, the sum of $195,000, or such other sum as to the Court seems just and equitable. She further (or in the alternative) claims an order that the defendant pay her $700 per month for 10 years by way of contribution to a specified mortgage.

The equity of acquiescence arises, so the statement of claim alleges, because by the plaintiff's actions the defendant has been unjustly enriched; and that unjust enrichment has resulted from actions – of which the defendant knew and in which he acquiesced – undertaken by the plaintiff in reliance, to the defendant's knowledge, on a promise made by the defendant to the plaintiff that he would make provision for the plaintiff's financial security. He was to do this by (a) subdividing for her benefit a farm owned by him; (b) leaving to the plaintiff in his will a life interest in that farm together with the fee simple ownership of a house owned by the defendant in the United States; and (c) discharging a mortgage over a property owned by her in Harold Street, Mount Lawley, Western Australia.

These promises, according to the plaintiff, induced her to take the primary responsibility for housekeeping at the several households maintained by the couple, and to make a substantial financial and non-financial…

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 Holt v Forehan

Details

AGLC: Holt v Forehan [2006] VSC 148
Case: [2006] VSC 148
Decision Date: 21 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Holt v Forehan, the dispute involved an application to transfer proceedings from the Supreme Court of Victoria to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in this case was whether it was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings to the jurisdiction of Western Australia, pursuant to the provisions of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987.

The court was required to consider the appropriate legal principles to apply in determining whether a transfer should be granted when the relevant factors were evenly balanced. This involved examining the burden of proof and whether the principles applied in forum non conveniens applications should also apply in this context. The court considered relevant authorities such as BHP Billiton Ltd v Schulz, Ewins v BHP Billiton Ltd, McLeod v Munro, and Bankinvest AG v Seabrook to assist in its reasoning.

The court determined that the principles applied in forum non conveniens cases were not directly applicable to cross-vesting applications. Instead, the court needed to balance the relevant factors and decide whether the transfer was in the interests of justice. The court found that the applicant had discharged the burden of showing that the transfer was appropriate. As a result, the application to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Western Australia was granted.

The final orders of the court included the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Western Australia and specified the terms under which the transfer would occur. This included provisions for the preservation of the right to appeal and the continuation of any existing orders.

Orders