Legal Research
Cases
King v Adams

King v Adams

Case [2016] NSWSC 1798 14 December 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Brendan Wilfred King v Robert Lawrence Adams and 14 Others [2016] NSWSC 1798
Hearing dates: 18, 19, 20 October, plaintiff’s written submissions 28 October, defendants’ written submissions 2 November, plaintiff’s submissions in reply 6 November, 7 November 2016 (Final, oral submissions)
Decision date: 14 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity - Expedition List
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
See paragraph [335] and [336]

Catchwords: EQUITY – existence of a fiduciary duty – nature of fiduciary obligations – trusts – mingling of funds held on trust – definition of a joint venture – joint ventures and fiduciary relationships – remedial constructive trust – common intention constructive trust
CONTRACT – intention to contract – oral contracts – implied terms – objective determination of a contract and its terms – existence of a contract – estoppel by convention
Legislation Cited: Partnership Act 1892 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd (in liq) (2000) 202 CLR 588
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games Limited (1988) 18 NSWLR 540
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1953–1954) 92 CLR 424
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Birtchnell v Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Co Ltd (1929) 42 CLR 384
Blythe v Northwood (2005) 63 NSWLR 531
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977) 180 CLR 266
Brady v Stapleton (1952) 88 CLR 322
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 321
Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Colyer Fehr Tallow Pty Ltd v KNZ Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 457
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169
Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Limited (1986) 160 CLR 226
Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373
Cook v Addison (1869) LR 7 Eq 466
County Securities Pty Ltd v Challenger Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 193
Dabbs v Seaman (1925) 36 CLR 538
Day v Mead [1987] 2 NZLR 443
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95
Everson v Rich (1988) 53 DLR (4d)
Farnell v Cox (1898) 19 LR (NSW) Eq 142)
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Everett (1980) 143 CLR 440
Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102
Frith v Cartland (1865) 2 Hem & M 417
Furs Ltd v Tomkies (1936) 54 CLR 583
Gardiner v Grigg (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 524
Gibson Motorsport Merchandise Pty Ltd v Forbes (2006) 149 FCR 569
Gibson Motorsport Merchandise Pty…

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 [2016] NSWSC 1798
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1798
Decision Date: 14 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of King v Adams arose in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, King, sought to establish the existence of fiduciary duties owed to him by the defendant, Adams. The dispute centred on a joint venture agreement, which the plaintiff claimed had been breached by the defendant's actions. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had mingled funds held on trust and sought to enforce a remedial constructive trust over certain assets. Additionally, the plaintiff argued for the application of a common intention constructive trust over a property. The defendant denied the existence of any fiduciary duty or constructive trust.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the joint venture agreement constituted a fiduciary relationship, the nature and scope of any fiduciary obligations, and the application of either a remedial or a common intention constructive trust. The court was also required to ascertain whether there was an enforceable contract between the parties, including any implied terms, and whether an estoppel by convention applied.

In examining the evidence, the court found that the parties had entered into a joint venture agreement, which established a fiduciary relationship between them. The court held that the mingling of funds by the defendant constituted a breach of the fiduciary obligations owed to the plaintiff. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim for a common intention constructive trust, finding insufficient evidence of a shared understanding regarding the property. The court further found that there was a binding oral contract between the parties, including certain implied terms. The court concluded that an estoppel by convention did not apply in this case.

The court ordered the defendant to account for the profits derived from the breach of fiduciary duty and to pay damages to the plaintiff. The court also found in favour of the plaintiff on the existence of the contract and ordered the defendant to comply with its terms. The court dismissed the claim for a common intention constructive trust and found that the plaintiff's claim for an estoppel by convention was unsuccessful.

Orders