Lawrie v Hwang - [2012] QSC 422

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lawrie & Anor v Hwang & Ors [2012] QSC 422

PARTIES:

KEITH JOHN LAWRIE by his litigation guardian THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND
(first plaintiff)
LAWMAR PTY LTD
ACN 009 775 866
(second plaintiff)
v
KUMOK HWANG
(first defendant)
SUNCORP-METWAY LIMITED
ACN 010 831 722
(second defendant)
GOLDPEARL PTY LTD
ACN 154 717 281
(third defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 9495 of 2012
SC No 9404 of 2012

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5–7 December 2012

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

Order as per draft judgment as initialled

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – FOLLOWING TRUST PROPERTY – GENERALLY – where transactions transferring substantial amounts from various accounts – where first plaintiff suffered from mental impairment – whether first plaintiff lacked capacity and authority to make decisions regarding financial matters – whether first defendant acted dishonestly – whether first defendant exerted undue influence – whether third defendant knowing recipient of the funds – whether first and third defendants are constructive trustees – whether concurrent orders should be made

COUNSEL:

D B O’Sullivan with S J Webster for the plaintiffs
G Shoebridge for the first defendant (by leave to make limited submissions)
No appearance for the second and third defendants

SOLICITORS:

The Official Solicitor to the Public Trustee of Queensland for the plaintiffs
No solicitors on the record for the first defendant
No appearance for the second and third defendants

PHILIPPIDES J:
Background

The present proceeding is brought by Keith John Lawrie (“Mr Lawrie”), by his litigation guardian, the Public Trustee of Queensland as first plaintiff and Lawmar Pty Ltd (“Lawmar”) as second plaintiff.

Mr Lawrie is 82 years of age, being born on 18 October 1930. Lawmar was the corporate vehicle through which he as director conducted various business enterprises.

The proceeding is brought against the first and third defendants (the claim against the second defendant is no longer pursued). The first defendant, Kumok Hwang (“Ms Hwang”) was born on 25 November 1957, being 55 years of age and of South Korean descent. The third defendant, Goldpearl Pty Ltd (“Goldpearl”) was incorporated on 9 December 2011, with Ms Hwang as its sole director and shareholder.

The claims involve transactions transferring very substantial amounts totalling some $3 million which were transferred from Lawmar bank accounts. These transactions include a transaction on 8 November 2011 purporting to terminate a term deposit account held by Lawmar and to authorise the transfer of $2,640,030 held in that account to a joint account in the names of Mr Lawrie and Ms Hwang and subsequent transfers to other accounts. Additionally, they include various transactions from June 2011 to January 2012 involving accounts held by Lawmar amounting to $361,451.36 (together the relevant transactions).

Concurrent claims are made for a declaration of constructive trust, and for money orders. The constructive trust claim is said to arise by reason of Ms Hwang’s fraud, by reason of her undue influence…

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 Lawrie v Hwang 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: [2012] QSC 422
Decision Date: 18 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lawrie v Hwang was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, involving multiple parties engaged in a dispute over the transfer of substantial sums of money from various accounts. The first plaintiff, who suffered from a mental impairment, contended that she lacked the capacity and authority to make decisions regarding these financial matters. Additionally, the first plaintiff claimed that the first defendant acted dishonestly, exerted undue influence, and that the third defendant knowingly received funds transferred by the first defendant. The central question was whether the first and third defendants should be recognised as constructive trustees over the transferred funds.

The legal issues before the court included determining the capacity of the first plaintiff to manage her finances, assessing whether the first defendant acted dishonestly and exerted undue influence, and ascertaining whether the third defendant knowingly received funds transferred by the first defendant. The court also had to decide if the first and third defendants should be declared constructive trustees over the disputed funds and whether concurrent orders should be made to protect the first plaintiff's interests.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and concluded that the first plaintiff lacked the capacity to make decisions regarding her financial matters due to her mental impairment. It was further found that the first defendant acted dishonestly and exerted undue influence over the first plaintiff. The third defendant was also found to be a knowing recipient of the transferred funds. As a result, the court held that the first and third defendants should be recognised as constructive trustees over the funds in question. Concurrent orders were made to protect the first plaintiff’s interests, ensuring that the transferred funds are held in trust for her benefit.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order as per draft judgment as initialled

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.

CITATION:	Lawrie & Anor v Hwang & Ors [2012] QSC 422
PARTIES:	KEITH JOHN LAWRIE by his litigation guardian THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND (first plaintiff) LAWMAR PTY LTD ACN 009 775 866 (second plaintiff) v KUMOK HWANG (first defendant) SUNCORP-METWAY LIMITED ACN 010 831 722 (second defendant) GOLDPEARL PTY LTD ACN 154 717 281 (third defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 9495 of 2012 SC No 9404 of 2012
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	18 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5–7 December 2012
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	Order as per draft judgment as initialled
CATCHWORDS:	EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – FOLLOWING TRUST PROPERTY – GENERALLY – where transactions transferring substantial amounts from various accounts – where first plaintiff suffered from mental impairment – whether first plaintiff lacked capacity and authority to make decisions regarding financial matters – whether first defendant acted dishonestly – whether first defendant exerted undue influence – whether third defendant knowing recipient of the funds – whether first and third defendants are constructive trustees – whether concurrent orders should be made
COUNSEL:	D B O’Sullivan with S J Webster for the plaintiffs G Shoebridge for the first defendant (by leave to make limited submissions) No appearance for the second and third defendants
SOLICITORS:	The Official Solicitor to the Public Trustee of Queensland for the plaintiffs No solicitors on the record for the first defendant No appearance for the second and third defendants