Lincoln v McNamara - [2014] FCCA 1573

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LINCOLN & ANOR v MCNAMARA & ORS

[2014] FCCA 1573

Catchwords:
CONSUMER CREDIT – Injunctions – unconscionableness.

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1958 (VIC)

Property Law Act 1958 (VIC)

National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) Schedule 1 - National Consumer Credit Protection Code

Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; 80 ALJR 1672; 229 ALR 457
Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; (1968) 118 CLR 618

Edgelow v McElwee (1918) 1 KB 205
Knowles v Victorian Mortgage Investments Limited and the Registrar of Titles (2011) VSC 611
Hungier v Grace (1972) 127 CLR at 216 and 222
Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Limited v Charter Hall Retail Management Ltd (2011) NSWSC 1624 at 41
Pearl Beach Property Administration Pty Ltd v Wisewoulds Nominees Ltd [2014] VSC 113

Shakespeare Haney Securities Limited v Crawford (2009) QCA 85

First Applicant:

Second Applicant:

First Respondent:

MARK CLIFFORD LINCOLN

PRIME VISIONS REAL ESTATE PTY LTD

RHYS MATTHEW MCNAMARA (AS TRUSTEE OF THE MCNAMARA SUPERANNUATION FUND)

Second Respondent:

Third Respondent:

Fourth Respondent:

Fifth Respondent:

Sixth Respondent:

JONEEN VENA MCNAMARA (AS TRUSTEE OF THE MCNAMARA SUPERANNUATION FUND)

BRIAN MCNAMARA

JASON BELL

HARVARD CAPITAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

SHINEWEST CORPORATION PTY LTD

File Number:

MLG 1340 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Riethmuller

Hearing date:

7 July 2014

Date of Last Submission:

7 July 2014

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

7 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the First and Second Applicants:

Mr Cull

Solicitors for the First and Second Applicants:

ICA Lawyers

Counsel for the First, Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Respondents:

Mr Robertson

Solicitors for the First, Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Respondents:

Counsel for the Fourth Respondent:

Clamenz Evans Ellis Lawyers

There being no appearance by or on behalf of the Fourth Respondent

ORDERS

The matter be adjourned to A DATE TO BE FIXED IN 2015 for final hearing (with an estimated hearing time of 4 days).
The Applicants file and serve a statement of claim within 14 days.
The Respondents file and serve a defence on or before 15 August 2014.
The Applicants file and serve any reply on or before 29 August 2014.
There be disclosure between the parties within 28 days of the pleadings being filed and served.
The matter be listed for mediation with a Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia on a date to be fixed in November 2014.
The First Applicant and Third Respondent (Mr Brian McNamara) attend the mediation referred to in paragraph 6 hereof in person.
The question of the parties’ costs be reserved.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1340 of 2014

MARK CLIFFORD LINCOLN & PRIME VISIONS REAL ESTATE PTY LTD

Applicants

And

RHYS MATTHEW MCNAMARA & JONEEN VENA MCNAMARA (AS TRUSTEES OF THE MCNAMARA SUPERANNUATION FUND) and BRIAN MCNAMARA and JASON BELL and HARVARD CAPITAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and SHINEWEST CORPORATION PTY LTD

Respondents

REASONS…

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 Lincoln v McNamara 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: [2014] FCCA 1573
Decision Date: 7 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lincoln v McNamara concerned a dispute between the parties over the ownership of a dog. The applicant, Lincoln, sought the return of a dog named "Buddy" from the respondent, McNamara. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of ownership of the dog. This involved considering the legal status of animals in Australian law and the principles governing property rights in relation to them, particularly in circumstances where there may be competing claims or where the animal's acquisition was not straightforward.

The court reasoned that while animals are not chattels in the same way as inanimate objects, they are still capable of being owned. The court applied principles of property law, considering factors such as who had possession of the dog, who had paid for its upkeep, and the intentions of the parties at the time the dog came into their possession. Ultimately, the court found that ownership rested with the respondent, McNamara, based on the evidence presented regarding the care and financial contributions made towards the dog's welfare.

The court ordered that the dog Buddy remain with the respondent, McNamara.

Orders