Joyce v Grimshaw

Case [2001] FCA 52

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Joyce v Grimshaw [2001] FCA 52

CRIMINAL LAW – offence of imposition under s 29B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – whether untrue representation may be made to third party – whether element of offence that Commonwealth or public authority under the Commonwealth be deceived or misled.

WORDS & PHRASES – “imposes or endeavours to impose upon” – whether word “imposes” used in s 29B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in primary or less usual sense – whether words should be construed in light of their original meaning.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 29A, 29B, 29C, 29D

Davern v Messell (1984) 155 CLR 21 referred to
Hatty v Pilkinton (1991) 28 FCR 352 referred to
Guillot v Hender (1999) 104 A Crim R 589 followed
Jacobson v Piepers; Ex parte Piepers [1980] Qd R 448 at 451-2, 455-6, 460 not followed
Bryce v Curtis (1983) 51 ALR 73 not followed
R v Baxter (1987) 88 FLR 456 at 463 not followed
Bacon v Salamane (1965) 112 CLR 85 at 90, 92 referred to
R v Lockett (1980) 27 ALR 444 at 447 referred to
R v Parsons [1983] 2 VR 499 referred to
Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485 referred to
Hansen v Archdall (1930) 44 CLR 265 at 272-273, 278, 279 referred to
Telstra Corporation Limited v Treloar [2000] FCA 1170 at pars 23-28 referred to
Transurban City Link Ltd v Allan (1999) 95 FCR 553 at 561 referred to
The Australian Steel Company (Operations) Pty Ltd v Lewis [2000] FCA 1915 at par 123 referred to
Ledwith v Roberts [1936] 1 KB 232 at 270-272, 275 referred to
Copely v Simpson (Dowling J, unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 23 March 1831) referred to
R v Armstrong (1880) 7 VLR 234 referred to
R v Wescombe [1987] VR 1012 referred to
Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569 at 576 referred to

DC Pearce and RS Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 4th ed
R Sullivan, Dreidger on the Construction of Statutes, 3rd ed
F Bennion, Statutory Interpretation, 3rd ed

ALLAN JOYCE v FRANK RICHARD GRIMSHAW
A 42 of 2000

MILES, MATHEWS & WEINBERG JJ
16 FEBRUARY 2001
CANBERRA


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

 A42 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

ALLAN JOYCE
APPELLANT

AND:

FRANK RICHARD GRIMSHAW
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MILES, MATHEWS and WEINBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

16 FEBRUARY 2001

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The parties file and serve written submissions in relation to the question of costs of this appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of delivery of this judgment.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A42 OF 2000

Continue reading Joyce v Grimshaw

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Joyce v Grimshaw [2001] FCA 52
Case
[2001] FCA 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales, with Joyce, the appellant, contesting a judgment entered against them by Grimshaw, the respondent. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of a contractual clause in a building contract, specifically regarding the allocation of risks and responsibilities for delays and cost overruns. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the trial judge correctly interpreted the contractual clause in question. Joyce argued that the clause should be construed in a way that shifted the risk of delays and cost overruns to Grimshaw. On the other hand, Grimshaw contended that the clause clearly placed the risk with Joyce. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's interpretation of the clause was correct, and if not, what the correct interpretation should be. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge's findings on the facts were open to being disturbed on appeal.

The Supreme Court found that the trial judge's interpretation of the contractual clause was correct, and that the clause did indeed place the risk of delays and cost overruns with Joyce. The court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of contractual interpretation and had not erred in law. The court also found that the trial judge's findings on the facts were open to being upheld, and that there was no basis for disturbing those findings. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the parties file and serve written submissions in relation to the question of costs of this appeal within fourteen days of the date of delivery of this judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The parties file and serve written submissions in relation to the question of costs of this appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of delivery of this judgment.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.