King v Adams - [2017] NSWCA 277

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: King v Adams & Ors [2017] NSWCA 277
Hearing dates: 24 August 2017
Decision date: 06 November 2017
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
White JA at [2];
Emmett AJA at [56]
Decision:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Appellant pay the costs of the first and third to fifteenth respondents.
Catchwords:
EQUITY – Trusts – winning lottery syndicate arranged by first respondent – whether appellant was a member of the winning syndicate – no error in primary judge’s finding that appellant was not a member
EQUITY – Tracing – whether moneys of another syndicate of which appellant was a member were used in purchase of winning ticket – no error in primary judge’s finding that the only moneys used were moneys collected from members of the winning syndicate – no question of principle
Cases Cited: Brendan Wilfred King v Robert Lawrence Adams and 14 Ors [2016] NSWSC 1798
Byrnes v Kendle (2011) 243 CLR 253; [2011] HCA 26
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones (2013) 249 CLR 493; [2013] HCA 35
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brendan Wilfred King (Appellant)
Robert Lawrence Adams (1st Respondent)
Matthew John Adams (3rd Respondent)
Bradley Robert Adams (4th Respondent)
Silvestre Gavina Mico (5th Respondent)
Peter Andres (6th Respondent)
Davendra Singh (7th Respondent)
Robert Eric Beaver (8th Respondent )
Sean Cheak (9th Respondent)
Peter Salendra Prasad (10th Respondent)
Robert Griffiths (11th Respondent)
Hassan Hashim (12th Respondent)
Phongsavath Sengchangsavang (13th Respondent)
Quem Singue Lai (14th Respondent)
Viengxay Thattamanivong (15th Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
L V Gyles SC with I C McMeniman (Appellant)
N C Hutley SC with W A D Edwards (1st; 3rd – 15th Respondents)
Solicitors:
Shine Lawyers (Appellant)
Harris Friedman (1st; 3rd – 15th Respondents)

File Number(s): 2017/81905
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Equity Division

Citation:

[2016] NSWSC 1798;
[2017] NSWSC 117

Date of Decision:

14 December 2016

Before:

Sackar J

File Number(s):

2016/152625

Judgment

GLEESON JA: I agree with White JA.
WHITE JA: This is an appeal from orders of the Equity Division (Sackar J) made on 24 February 2017 dismissing the proceedings and giving judgment for the first and third to 15th defendants on the plaintiff’s further amended statement of claim (Brendan Wilfred King v Robert Lawrence Adams and 14 Ors [2016] NSWSC 1798). The dispute is whether the appellant, Mr King, was a member of a syndicate that won a lottery prize of $40,445,165.25. The winning ticket was purchased on 4 May 2016 in Powerball Draw 1042. The ticket was drawn on 5 May 2016.
Mr King was the plaintiff below. He was employed as a Production Manager at Prysmian Group Pty Ltd (“Prysmian”) at its factory in Liverpool. Prysmian is a cable manufacturer.
The first, third and fifth to 15th respondents were also employees of Prysmian. The first respondent, Mr Adams, organised and conducted syndicates 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 King v Adams

Details

AGLC: King v Adams [2017] NSWCA 277
Case: [2017] NSWCA 277
Decision Date: 06 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *King v Adams* concerned whether the appellant, Mr. King, was a member of a lottery syndicate that won a significant prize. The primary judge had found that Mr. King was not a member of this winning syndicate. Mr. King appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the appellant was not a member of the winning lottery syndicate. Secondly, the court had to consider whether moneys belonging to a different syndicate, of which the appellant was a member, had been used in the purchase of the winning ticket.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. The court found no error in the primary judge's conclusion that the appellant was not a member of the winning syndicate, nor in the finding that the funds used to purchase the winning ticket were solely those collected from the members of that specific syndicate. Consequently, no question of tracing moneys from another syndicate arose.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and third to fifteenth respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant pay the costs of the first and third to fifteenth respondents.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	King v Adams & Ors [2017] NSWCA 277
Hearing dates:	24 August 2017
Decision date:	06 November 2017
Before:	Gleeson JA at [1] White JA at [2]; Emmett AJA at [56]
Decision:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Appellant pay the costs of the first and third to fifteenth respondents.
Catchwords:	EQUITY – Trusts – winning lottery syndicate arranged by first respondent – whether appellant was a member of the winning syndicate – no error in primary judge’s finding that appellant was not a member EQUITY – Tracing – whether moneys of another syndicate of which appellant was a member were used in purchase of winning ticket – no error in primary judge’s finding that the only moneys used were moneys collected from members of the winning syndicate – no question of principle
Cases Cited:	Brendan Wilfred King v Robert Lawrence Adams and 14 Ors [2016] NSWSC 1798 Byrnes v Kendle (2011) 243 CLR 253; [2011] HCA 26 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones (2013) 249 CLR 493; [2013] HCA 35
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Brendan Wilfred King (Appellant) Robert Lawrence Adams (1st Respondent) Matthew John Adams (3rd Respondent) Bradley Robert Adams (4th Respondent) Silvestre Gavina Mico (5th Respondent) Peter Andres (6th Respondent) Davendra Singh (7th Respondent) Robert Eric Beaver (8th Respondent ) Sean Cheak (9th Respondent) Peter Salendra Prasad (10th Respondent) Robert Griffiths (11th Respondent) Hassan Hashim (12th Respondent) Phongsavath Sengchangsavang (13th Respondent) Quem Singue Lai (14th Respondent) Viengxay Thattamanivong (15th Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: L V Gyles SC with I C McMeniman (Appellant) N C Hutley SC with W A D Edwards (1st; 3rd – 15th Respondents) Solicitors: Shine Lawyers (Appellant) Harris Friedman (1st; 3rd – 15th Respondents)
File Number(s):	2017/81905
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Equity Division Citation: [2016] NSWSC 1798; [2017] NSWSC 117 Date of Decision: 14 December 2016 Before: Sackar J File Number(s): 2016/152625