Jeans v Cleary [2006] NSWSC 647 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):
13 June 2006, 14 June 2006, 15 June 2006, 19 June 2006
JUDGMENT DATE :
28 June 2006
JUDGMENT OF:
Johnson J at 1
DECISION:
1. Verdict for the Defendant against the Plaintiff; 2. Plaintiff to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:
DECEIT - claim of forgery of signature on guarantee - whether forgery proved - expert handwriting evidence - claim of forgery rejected - element of reliance in tort of deceit
John Anthony Jeans (Plaintiff) Stephen Thomas Cleary (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20049/04
COUNSEL:
Mr JM Ireland QC (Plaintiff) Mr AG Bell SC; Mr DA McLure (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:
Moloney Lawyers (Plaintiff) JK O'Sullivan (Defendant)
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
---
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
Johnson J
28 June 2006
20049/04 John Anthony Jeans v Stephen Thomas Cleary
JUDGMENT
1 JOHNSON J: The Plaintiff, John Anthony Jeans, claims damages from the Defendant, Stephen Thomas Cleary, for…
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 Jeans v Cleary
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jeans v Cleary [2006] NSWSC 647
Case
[2006] NSWSC 647
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Jeans v Cleary, the plaintiff, Jeans, sought to recover damages from the defendant, Cleary, on the basis of deceit. Jeans alleged that Cleary forged Jeans' signature on a guarantee and presented it to a third party, causing financial loss to Jeans. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether Cleary had indeed forged Jeans' signature on the guarantee and whether Jeans could prove reliance on the forged signature, a necessary element of the tort of deceit.
The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including expert testimony on handwriting analysis. The experts concluded that the signature on the guarantee did not match Jeans' authentic signature. However, the court found that Jeans had failed to establish the element of reliance. The court held that although the signature was indeed forged, Jeans did not demonstrate that the third party had relied on the forged signature when entering into the agreement. Without proof of reliance, Jeans' claim for deceit could not succeed.
As a result, the court dismissed Jeans' claim against Cleary. The court found that while Cleary had indeed forged Jeans' signature, Jeans had not proven that the third party had relied on the forged signature. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Cleary and dismissed the claim. The court did not make any specific orders regarding costs.