Lake v Crawford - [2013] NSWSC 96

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lake v Crawford [2013] NSWSC 96
Hearing dates: 14/02/2013
Decision date: 21 February 2013
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Order that the defence of the first defendant filed 11 June 2010 be struck out.
(2) Order that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $3,900,000 together with interest up to 13 February 2013, in the sum of $1,992,428.77.
(3) Order that the defence of the second defendant filed 11 June 2010 be struck out.
(4) Order that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $1,345,000 together with interest up to 13 February 2013, in the sum of $1,665,627.60.
(5) Order the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings including any reserved costs.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - summary judgment - defendant's continued failure to comply with Court orders - section 61(3) of Civil Procedure Act 2005 - strike out of defence as a result of non-compliance with Court directions. RESTITUTION - recovery of money paid under duress or compulsion - involuntary payment of money as a result of incapacity.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Desmond Kenneth Lake (P)
Ngaope Hoia Crawford (D1)
Delcort Investments Pty Ltd (D2)
Representation: C Freeman (P)
No Appearance (D1 & D2)
Goldbergs Lawyers (P)
In person (D1 & D2)

File Number(s): 2009/295057

Judgment

Desmond Kenneth Lake, formerly a well-known jockey and horse trainer, commenced proceedings in 2009.

At that time, he was under a legal incapacity and so the proceedings were commenced by his tutors, Gregory Grant Shand and Helen Keilar.

Mr Lake was married to Deanne Lake. She died on 21 November 2008. The tutors are related to Mr and Mrs Lake.

The defendants are Ngaope Hoia Crawford, who is generally known as Sonny Crawford, and a company, Delcort Investments Pty Ltd ("Delcort"), with which Mr Crawford is connected.

The plaintiff claims that at a time when he was incapable of rational decision-making, and did not know the nature and effect of what he was doing, he appointed his two tutors and Mrs Lake as his enduring guardians. He says that the appointment was invalid.

He further says that, from at least December 2006, Mrs Lake was an alcoholic and had an alcohol dependency, had a substance abuse disorder, had a number of personality disorders and was cognitively impaired. He says that as a consequence of those conditions, she was unable to adequately look after herself and required a high degree of personal assistance. He also alleges that for a 12 month period leading up to her death, Mrs Lake regularly took oxycodone and benzodiazepines which caused her to be mentally confused, and to lack rational cognition.

It seems to be undisputed that during the period of time leading up to Mrs Lake's death, the first defendant, Sonny Crawford, lived with Mr and Mrs Lake and provided…

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 Lake v Crawford

Details

AGLC: Lake v Crawford [2013] NSWSC 96
Case: [2013] NSWSC 96
Decision Date: 21 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lake versus Crawford, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with adjudicating a dispute concerning the recovery of money paid under duress. The plaintiff, Lake, sought to recover funds paid to the defendant, Crawford, under circumstances that Lake contended amounted to duress. The dispute arose from a situation where Lake, due to perceived threats and undue influence, had made payments to Crawford, which Lake now sought to reclaim. The case involved an application for summary judgment, the appropriateness of striking out the defendant's defence due to non-compliance with court orders, and the principles surrounding the recovery of money paid under duress.

The court was required to determine whether the defence presented by Crawford was valid, and if not, whether the appropriate course of action was to strike out the defence under section 61(3) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. Additionally, the court needed to examine the circumstances under which money paid under duress could be recovered, focusing on whether Lake's capacity to contract was impaired at the time of payment. The court also needed to consider whether the defendant's failure to comply with court orders warranted the striking out of the defence.

The court found that Crawford had failed to comply with previous court orders, which justified the striking out of the defence as per section 61(3) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The court held that the evidence presented by Lake demonstrated that the payments were made under duress, and that Lake's capacity to contract was significantly impaired at the time of payment. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for summary judgment and ruled that the money paid under duress could be recovered. The court ordered that Crawford repay the funds to Lake, plus interest and costs as stipulated in the judgment.

Orders