LAWRENCE & ORS -v- BRANCH [2002] WASCA 292
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 292 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:1/2002 | 6 SEPTEMBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J WHEELER J BURCHETT AUJ | 29/10/02 | |
| 10 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | FRANCIS JOHN LAWRENCE JOAN NOREEN LAWRENCE DENE FRANCIS LAWRENCE MYRTLE RUBY BRANCH |
Catchwords: | Appeal Failure to make findings of fact Failure to give reasons for particular findings No error Turns on own facts Equity Unconscionable retention of benefit Purchase of land and construction of house and granny flat Expectation of interest in land Failure of joint venture Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137 Calverly v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 Devries v Australia National Railings Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101 Kais v Turvey (1994) 11 WAR 357 Morris v Morris [1982] 1 NSWLR 61 Paterson v Paterson (1953) 89 CLR 212 Thornett v Williams [2001] WASC 194 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : LAWRENCE & ORS -v- BRANCH [2002] WASCA 292 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- WHEELER J
BURCHETT AUJ
- JOAN NOREEN LAWRENCE
DENE FRANCIS LAWRENCE
Appellants (Defendants)
AND
MYRTLE RUBY BRANCH
Respondent (Plaintiff)
Catchwords:
Appeal - Failure to make findings of fact - Failure to give reasons for particular findings - No error - Turns on own facts
Equity - Unconscionable retention of benefit - Purchase of land and construction of house and granny flat - Expectation of interest in land - Failure of joint venture - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellants (Defendants) : In person (Mr F J Lawrence)
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Ms W F Buckley
Solicitors:
Appellants (Defendants) : In person
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Cahill Billington
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Case(s) also cited:
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Calverly v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Devries v Australia National Railings Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Kais v Turvey (1994) 11 WAR 357
Morris v Morris [1982] 1 NSWLR 61
Paterson v Paterson (1953) 89 CLR 212
Thornett v Williams [2001] WASC 194
(Page 3)
1 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment and the conclusions of Wheeler J.
2 There is nothing I wish to add.
3 WHEELER J: This is an appeal from a decision of Justice Templeman dated 11 December 2001. It arose from certain payments made in respect of a property, upon which a house was built, the payments being made by Mrs Branch and the house being one purchased…
Continue reading Lawrence v Branch
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Lawrence v Branch [2002] WASCA 292
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 292
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the court involved a dispute between Lawrence and Branch regarding the retention of a benefit obtained through unconscionable conduct. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the primary judge erred in failing to make certain findings of fact or in not providing reasons for particular findings. The secondary issue was whether the retention of a benefit obtained through unconscionable conduct was established on the facts of the case.
The court found that the primary judge did not err in failing to make specific findings of fact or in not providing reasons for particular findings. The court determined that the appeal turned on the unique facts of the case and that no error was made. Furthermore, the court held that the retention of a benefit obtained through unconscionable conduct was established based on the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that Lawrence and Branch had entered into a joint venture to purchase land and construct a house and granny flat, with an expectation of an interest in the land. However, when the joint venture failed, Branch retained the benefit of the land without any entitlement, which amounted to unconscionable conduct.
Based on the findings, the court dismissed the appeal. The appeal was found to turn on the unique facts of the case, and no error was made by the primary judge in failing to make specific findings of fact or in not providing reasons for particular findings. The unconscionable retention of a benefit was established, and the primary judge's decision was upheld. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and no further orders were made.
The court found that the primary judge did not err in failing to make specific findings of fact or in not providing reasons for particular findings. The court determined that the appeal turned on the unique facts of the case and that no error was made. Furthermore, the court held that the retention of a benefit obtained through unconscionable conduct was established based on the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that Lawrence and Branch had entered into a joint venture to purchase land and construct a house and granny flat, with an expectation of an interest in the land. However, when the joint venture failed, Branch retained the benefit of the land without any entitlement, which amounted to unconscionable conduct.
Based on the findings, the court dismissed the appeal. The appeal was found to turn on the unique facts of the case, and no error was made by the primary judge in failing to make specific findings of fact or in not providing reasons for particular findings. The unconscionable retention of a benefit was established, and the primary judge's decision was upheld. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and no further orders were made.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.