Ian Rodda Pty Ltd v Rodda - [2015] SASC 149

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
IAN RODDA PTY LTD & ANOR v RODDA & ANOR
[2015] SASC 149
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Kelly
24 September 2015
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
The appellants seek a stay of execution of orders made by a Judge of this Court on 26 August 2015, pending an appeal to the Full Court. Among other things, those orders require the appellants to pay equitable compensation and pre-judgment interest to the respondents and to transfer their estate and interest in farming land to the respondents.
Whether the execution of the orders should be stayed pending the appeal.
Appellants’ application partially allowed but only in relation to those orders for which the stay sought is not opposed by respondents.
Held (otherwise dismissing the application):
1. The appellants will face a high hurdle in persuading an appeal court that the trial Judge has erred, however this does not militate against the grant of a stay.
2. The appellants have not established that they are at real risk of suffering prejudice of damage that could not be redressed if they are successful on appeal.
3. The balance of convenience does not favour the granting of a stay.
Landmark Operations Ltd v J Tiver Nominees Pty Ltd [2009] SASC 14; Essential Beauty Franchising (WA) Pty Ltd & Ors v Pilton Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2014] SASC 148; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2012] FCA 1076; Hackney Tavern Nominees Pty Ltd v McLeod (1983) 33 SASR 590; Ryan v Urban Construct (SA) Pty Ltd (No 2) (2012) 114 SASR 410, considered.

IAN RODDA PTY LTD & ANOR v RODDA & ANOR
[2015] SASC 149
Civil: Reasons for Decision
KELLY J.

On 1 July 2015 following a trial, a Judge of this Court delivered judgment in favour of the respondents, Stuart Ian Rodda and Shannon Lynn-Neil Rodda.[1] On 26 August 2015, the Judge ordered the appellants, Ian Rodda Pty Ltd and Ian Lewis Rodda, to pay to the respondents, by way of equitable compensation, the sum of $1,500,000 together with pre-judgment interest in the additional amount of $149,401.[2] The respondents were also ordered to remove caveats lodged against land at Ocean Downs (the Ocean Downs land) simultaneously with the transfer by the appellants of all of their estate and interest in the Ocean Downs land to the respondents for their sole use and benefit absolutely, free from any encumbrance. There were other orders made by the Judge not relevant to the current application.
[1] Rodda & Anor v Ian Rodda Pty Ltd & Anor; Ian Rodda Pty Ltd v Rodda & Anor [2015] SASC 95.
[2] Rodda & Anor v Ian Rodda Pty Ltd & Anor; Ian Rodda Pty Ltd v Rodda & Anor (No 2) [2015] SASC 128.
On 14 September 2015 the appellants filed a notice of appeal. By an interlocutory application…

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 Ian Rodda Pty Ltd v Rodda

Details

AGLC: Ian Rodda Pty Ltd v Rodda [2015] SASC 149
Case: [2015] SASC 149
Decision Date: 24 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Rodda Pty Ltd and others appealed against a decision that ordered the transfer of the Ocean Downs land to the respondents, along with the payment of equitable compensation and pre-judgment interest. The primary issue before the court was whether to grant a stay of the proceedings, which would halt the execution of the Judge's orders. The court had to decide if the appellants had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the stay, including the potential for irreparable harm if the orders were enforced.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that neither party was uniquely suited to farm the land, given their long-standing involvement. The court found that the appellants had not adequately shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the orders were enforced, particularly regarding the payment of compensation and interest. Additionally, the court noted the respondents' undertaking not to sell the land, which influenced its decision. The court also considered the commercial nature of the dispute and the personal consequences of the breakdown of familial relationships.

Based on these considerations, the court decided not to grant a stay of the transfer of the Ocean Downs land and the payment of compensation and interest. However, the court allowed a partial stay concerning the orders for a taking of accounts and profits since December 2012, as per the Judge's orders. The court scheduled further hearings to address the form of orders for dismissal of the application and the costs associated with the application.

ORDERS:
1. The application for a stay in relation to the payment of equitable compensation and interest, and a transfer of the Ocean Downs land is dismissed.
2. The application for a stay in relation to the orders for a taking of accounts and profits in relation to the Ocean Downs property since December 2012 is allowed.
3. The parties will be heard regarding the form of orders to dismiss the application and the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellants will face a high hurdle in persuading an appeal court that the trial Judge has erred, however this does not militate against the grant of a stay.

2. The appellants have not established that they are at real risk of suffering prejudice of damage that could not be redressed if they are successful on appeal.

3. The balance of convenience does not favour the granting of a stay.

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

KELLY J

Notwithstanding their ongoing differences of opinion about best practice farming methods (of which there is abundant evidence in the affidavits filed before this hearing) I consider that either of the second appellant or the first respondent are able to competently farm the Ocean Downs land. They have both been involved in farming it for many years. In that sense, it is neither here nor there which party carries out the 2015/2016 harvest. I do not consider the second appellant’s concerns about the extra cost of contractors being engaged to be of such significance as to militate against making an order which will give the respondents full control and possession of the Ocean Downs land in accordance with the Judge’s order. Conclusion For these reasons, I consider that there should be no order staying the transfer of the land and the ability of the respondents to resume occupation, possession and management of the Ocean Downs land. I am also influenced by the undertaking given by the respondents not to sell the Ocean Downs land, pending the outcome of the appeal. With regard to the payment of the equitable compensation and pre-judgment interest, I do not consider that there is any good reason to stay the order requiring immediate payment of those amounts, given the second appellant’s asset base. I do not consider that the appellants have discharged the onus upon them to demonstrate irrevocable prejudice such as to render any successful appeal nugatory, should the application for a stay in relation to the orders for compensation and interest, and transfer of the Ocean Downs property be refused. In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful that while this has been a commercial dispute between two successful farming partners, what lies at the heart of this dispute is a complete breakdown of familial relationships which has had tragic consequences for everyone concerned. I note that there has been no opposition by the respondents to a partial stay in respect of other orders made by the Judge requiring a taking of accounts and profits in relation to the Ocean Downs property since December 2012. Accordingly, and having regard to that concession, I will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of the orders to dismiss this application insofar as a stay is sought in relation to the payment of equitable compensation and interest, and a transfer of the Ocean Downs land, but allowing the application insofar as the orders contained in [11] to [14] of the Judge’s orders on 26 August 2015 are concerned. I shall also hear the parties in relation to the costs of this application.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: KELLY J

Full text does not contain this section.