Jones v Daniel

Case [2004] FCAFC 278

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jones v Daniel, in the matter of Daniel [2004] FCAFC 278

BANKRUPTCY – Whether an order under s 79 of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), properly construed, vested an equitable interest in matrimonial property in the wife when order made – whether property the subject of the order available to trustee in bankruptcy of estate of husband where sequestration order made after order under s 79 but before transfer of any legal interest – whether issue already determined by Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Mateo (2003) 127 FCR 217 – whether Full Court should follow earlier authority

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 116, 178
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 79

Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Mateo (2003) 127 FCR 217 applied
Wu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2000) 105 FCR 39 referred to
Transurban City Link v Allan (1999) 95 FCR 553 referred to

MICHAEL GREGORY JONES (AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE ESTATE OF TONY DANIEL) v TINA DANIEL
N 677 of 2004

HILL, MOORE & ALLSOP JJ
28 OCTOBER 2004
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 677 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE MATTER OF TINA DANIEL:

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL GREGORY JONES (AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE ESTATE OF TONY DANIEL)
APPELLANT

AND:

TINA DANIEL
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

HILL, MOORE AND ALLSOP JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

28 OCTOBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be dismissed.
  2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 677 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE MATTER OF TINA DANIEL:

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL GREGORY JONES (AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE ESTATE OF TONY DANIEL)
APPELLANT

AND:

TINA DANIEL
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

HILL, MOORE AND ALLSOP JJ

DATE:

28 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HILL J :

  1. I have had the benefit of reading, in draft, the reasons of Moore J and Allsop J. I agree with their Honours’ reasons and with the orders proposed by Moore J.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill.

Associate:

Dated:             28 October 2004



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 677 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE MATTER OF TINA DANIEL:

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL GREGORY JONES (AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE ESTATE OF TONY DANIEL)
APPELLANT

AND:

TINA DANIEL
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

HILL, MOORE AND ALLSOP JJ

DATE:

28 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOORE J :

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Emmett J of 16 April 2004 when orders were made giving effect to reasons for…

Continue reading Jones v Daniel

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jones v Daniel [2004] FCAFC 278
Case
[2004] FCAFC 278
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria by the appellant, Jones, against the respondent, Daniel. The nature of the dispute is a challenge to a lower court's decision regarding the validity of a contract for the sale of real property. The lower court had ruled in favour of the respondent, and the appellant sought to overturn this decision.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the contract in question was sufficiently clear and certain to be enforceable and whether there was evidence of the parties' intention to create legal relations. The court needed to determine whether the contract's terms were specific enough to allow for its enforcement and whether the circumstances surrounding the agreement demonstrated an intention to be legally bound.

The court considered the evidence presented and concluded that the contract was indeed clear and certain in its terms, and that there was a mutual intention to create legal relations between the parties. The court found that the terms of the contract were sufficiently detailed, and that the conduct of the parties indicated a serious intent to enter into a binding agreement. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision in favour of the respondent was upheld. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.

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

ALLSOP J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.