Hot Holdings v Creasy & Ors - [2002] HCATrans 117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S74 of 2001

B e t w e e n -
CURRABUBULA HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
First Applicant

PAOLA HOLDINGS PTY L IMITED
Second Applicant
and
STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 15 MARCH 2002, AT 11.43 AM

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR A.J. McINERNEY for the applicants. (instructed by Gadens Lawyers)

MR R.B.S. MACFARLAN, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR C.M. HARRIS for the respondent. (instructed by Mallesons Stephen Jaques)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Jackson.

MR JACKSON: Your Honours will see the application involves two issues, one relating to the case in contract, the other in defamation. May I deal with them in that order? First of all, dealing with the case in contract, we ‑ ‑ ‑

GLEESON CJ: May I ask you a question of fact about that, just so that I get the issues clear. There is reference in the evidence and in the judgments repeatedly to what is called “freezing” an account. What exactly was the date of the freezing and what did the freezing consist of?

MR JACKSON: May I answer the second first, your Honour. The freezing was to forbid there to be any further use of the overdraft facility. The overdraft facility was one whereby any of the companies in the Group could draw money from the Bank, in effect, provided that the total drawings of all the companies did not exceed the $8.5 million limit. Now, your Honours, what ‑ ‑ ‑

GLEESON CJ: The limited facility was $8.5 million?

MR JACKSON: Yes, and, your Honours, there were some express limits upon the duration of the facility there referred to at page 413 in volume 2, but it was not repayable on demand. The effect of the freezing was that, although at the time of the freezing it was overdrawn excessively.

GLEESON CJ: That is what I wanted to ask you: you said, “at the time of the freezing”. What was the date?

MR JACKSON: It was 15 February.

GLEESON CJ: 15 February.

CALLINAN J: 1990.

MR JACKSON: 1990.

GLEESON CJ: And, as at 15 February 1990, the limit of the facility had been exceeded?

MR JACKSON: Yes.

GLEESON CJ: What does it mean to “freeze” a facility, the limit of which has been exceeded?

MR JACKSON: Well, your Honour, what it means is that when money is put in so that it becomes below the amount of the limit, then, in the ordinary course of events, if the facility had not been brought to an end the use of it could resume, but the freezing of it meant that it could not be operated at all after that.

GLEESON CJ: The date was ‑ ‑…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hot Holdings v Creasy & Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] HCATrans 117
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning a dispute over the beneficial ownership of shares in a company, Hot Holdings Pty Ltd. The appellant, Mr. Creasy, claimed that he was the beneficial owner of certain shares in Hot Holdings, which he had acquired through a series of transactions involving a company called North West Resources Ltd. The respondent, Hot Holdings, disputed Mr. Creasy's claim, asserting that it was the legal and beneficial owner of the shares.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr. Creasy had established a resulting trust over the shares in question. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the funds used to acquire the shares were provided by Mr. Creasy, thereby giving rise to a presumption of a resulting trust in his favour, or if the funds were provided by North West Resources, which would rebut that presumption. The Court also considered whether any express trust had been created.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, found that the evidence supported the existence of a resulting trust in favour of Mr. Creasy. The Court reasoned that the funds used to acquire the shares originated from Mr. Creasy's personal resources, not from North West Resources. The presumption of a resulting trust, which arises when property is purchased and the legal title is taken in the name of one person but the purchase money is provided by another, was not rebutted by evidence of a contrary intention. The Court emphasised the importance of tracing the source of the purchase money to determine beneficial ownership.

Orders