Legal Research
Cases
King v Lintrose Nominees Pty Ltd

King v Lintrose Nominees Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 29 August 2001 31 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 2222 of 1992

PETER JOHN KING	Appellant
v.
LINTROSE NOMINEES PTY. LTD. and ORS	Respondents

No. 2052 of 1999

JAMES BARRIE STUART HOPKINS and DONALD GRAY HOPKINS
	Appellants
v.
PETER JOHN KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	CALLAWAY, BATT and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 June 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 August 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 140	First Revision – 5 February 2003

---

Judgments and orders – Res judicata – Anshun estoppel – Proceeding in 1992 for rescission of contract – Breach of fiduciary duty alleged against second and third defendants – No relief ultimately sought against them except as to costs – Order for equitable compensation later sought both in original proceeding and in fresh proceeding – Relief no longer available in either proceeding.

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

In No. 2222 of 1992:

For the Appellant

Mr R.M. Garratt, Q.C.
and Mr N.A. Frenkel

O’Donnell Frampton Salzano

For the Respondents

In No. 2052 of 1999:

For the Appellants

For the Respondent

Mr J.L. Sher, Q.C.
and Mr T.J. North

Mr R.M. Garratt, Q.C.
and Mr N.A. Frenkel

Deacons

O’Donnell Frampton Salzano

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

By a contract of sale made on 22^nd September 1989 Peter John King agreed to purchase the freehold of certain commercial premises in Moonee Ponds from Lintrose Nominees Pty Ltd (“Lintrose”) for $449,500. Mr King entered into the contract in reliance on investment advice given to him by an estate agent, John Hopkins & Co. Pty Ltd (“Hopkins & Co.”) through James Barrie Stuart Hopkins and his father, Donald Gray Hopkins. The Messrs Hopkins were directors of Lintrose and 51% of the shares in Lintrose were ultimately held by companies controlled by them. Hopkins & Co. was acting as agent for both the vendor and the purchaser. Mr King was unaware of the relationship of the Messrs Hopkins to Lintrose and of the dual role of Hopkins & Co., but the contract was completed and he became registered as the proprietor of the land.

In 1992 Mr King brought proceedings in the Supreme Court against Lintrose seeking a declaration that each of the Messrs Hopkins acted in breach of his fiduciary duty to Mr King in failing to disclose his interest in Lintrose and failing to make available to Mr King all the information he had in relation to the proposed purchase, a declaration that Mr King had rescinded the contract and that the contract was void ab initio, an order that Lintrose refund all monies paid by Mr King under the contract and an order for costs. The Messrs Hopkins were later added as defendants. Minor changes were then made to the allegations in the statement of claim but no change was made to the prayer for relief.

The trial took place before Hayne, J. on 21^st, 22^nd and 26^th April 1993. His Honour concluded, among other…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read King v Lintrose Nominees Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] VSCA 140
Decision Date: 29 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of King v Lintrose Nominees Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr King, and the defendant, Lintrose Nominees Pty Ltd, regarding the enforceability of a guarantee. The plaintiff sought to enforce a guarantee provided by the defendant for a debt owed by a third party, Lintrose Pty Ltd, which had become insolvent. The dispute centred on whether the guarantee was valid and enforceable, and if the plaintiff had the right to pursue the defendant for the debt.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the guarantee was properly executed and if the defendant had the authority to bind itself to the guarantee. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff had standing to enforce the guarantee against the defendant. The court had to consider the validity of the guarantee under the applicable law, including the requirements for a valid guarantee and the extent of the defendant's liability.

The court held that the guarantee was valid and enforceable, as it was properly executed and the defendant had the authority to bind itself. The court further found that the plaintiff had standing to enforce the guarantee against the defendant. The court determined that the requirements for a valid guarantee were met, and the defendant was liable for the debt as guaranteed. The court's decision was based on the clear terms of the guarantee, the authority of the defendant to enter into the agreement, and the insolvency of the original debtor, Lintrose Pty Ltd.

The court ordered that the defendant, Lintrose Nominees Pty Ltd, pay the plaintiff, Mr King, the amount of the debt guaranteed, plus interest and costs. The court also held that the guarantee was valid and enforceable, and that the plaintiff had the right to enforce it against the defendant. The decision provided clarity on the enforceability of guarantees in cases of insolvency and reinforced the importance of proper execution and authority in such agreements.

Orders