Kennedy v Proctor - [2021] VSC 521

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2020 01816

ANDREA KENNEDY	Appellant
v
TARRYN PROCTOR	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Quigley J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 August 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Kennedy v Proctor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 521

---

PERSONAL PROPERTY – Equity – Gift of a chattel inter vivos – Intention to make a gift – Appeal of ex tempore decision – Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 s 109 – Disputed ownership of a horse – Evidence – Proper approach to assessment of evidence – Whether trial judge erred in failing to examine evidence as a whole – Donative intention in dispute – Whether donative intent made out based on oral and documentary evidence – Nolan v Nolan (2003) 10 VR 626 and Nolan v Nolan [2004] VSCA 109 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr M Mackinnon	Horseforce Legal
For the Respondent	Mr A Silver	Jansen Walsh & Grace

HER HONOUR:

Background

This proceeding is an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria under s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic). The appeal from the decision below challenges the learned Magistrate’s decision in favour of the respondent of the ownership of a horse known as “Ishker”. The issue in dispute was whether the horse had been loaned or gifted to the respondent.

Ms Proctor brought a counterclaim in the same proceedings before the Magistrates’ Court for services performed in training and livery services for two other horses owned by Ms Kennedy.[1] However, the appeal relates only to the dispute over the ownership of Ishker.
[1]Amended Statement of Counterclaim, filed in Kennedy v Proctor (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, K10671554, commenced 15 March 2019), 12 August 2019.

The parties to this proceeding met in 2014 in Gembrook, Victoria. The appellant, Ms Andrea Kennedy engaged the respondent, Ms Tarryn Proctor, to give her daughter horse riding lessons. Ms Proctor was an able horse woman and aspiring dressage rider. Ms Kennedy later also received horse riding lessons personally from Ms Proctor. A very close relationship developed between Ms Kennedy and Ms Proctor, described by the learned Magistrate as ‘an extremely close relationship such as one might exist between a mother and daughter’[2] and that ‘loving relationship is borne out by the evidence given by the parties themselves.’[3]
[2]Transcript of ex tempore decision, Kennedy v Proctor (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, K10671554, Magistrate Foster, 19 March 2020) 1 (‘Ex Tempore Decision’).
[3]Ibid.

At some time in 2014, Ms Proctor fell off her horse when competing at an event and suffered serious injuries from the fall. Unfortunately, ‘Quest’, the horse that she had been riding at the time, had a serious injury and could no longer be ridden at competitive events.

In November 2014, Ms Kennedy recognising the keen commitment to competitive horse riding shown by Ms Proctor, offered to buy a horse to enable Ms Proctor to…

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 Kennedy v Proctor

Details

AGLC: Kennedy v Proctor [2021] VSC 521
Case: [2021] VSC 521
Decision Date: 23 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kennedy v Proctor, which reached the Court of Appeal, centred on a dispute over the ownership of a horse named 'Spirit'. The appellant, Kennedy, argued that the respondent, Proctor, had gifted the horse to him. The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the horse remained her property. The matter originated in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where an ex tempore decision was made in favour of the respondent. Kennedy appealed this decision.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the trial judge correctly assessed the evidence and whether donative intent was sufficiently demonstrated to establish a gift of the horse. The crux of the dispute lay in determining whether the respondent had the requisite intention to gift the horse to the appellant. This required scrutiny of both oral and documentary evidence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to consider the evidence as a whole and erred in not finding a donative intention.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not adequately consider the evidence in its entirety and did not sufficiently address the issue of donative intent. The appellate court examined the evidence, including the circumstances surrounding the alleged gift, the relationship between the parties, and the documentary evidence provided. The court concluded that the evidence supported the existence of a donative intention, aligning with the principles set out in Nolan v Nolan. Consequently, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in not recognising the donative intent based on the evidence presented. The appeal was thus allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates' Court for a rehearing.

The final orders included a direction for the Magistrates' Court to reassess the evidence in light of the appellate court's findings, ensuring a proper examination of the donative intent and the overall evidence. The case underscored the importance of a comprehensive review of evidence when determining the existence of a gift in the context of personal property.

Orders