LINDSAY AND OTHERS -v- McMANUS [2003] WASC 162

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 162
Published:	29/08/2003
Case No:	CIV:1502/2003	Heard:	8 AUGUST 2003
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	8/08/03
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order for delivery up of documents
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BRIAN DESMOND LINDSAY AND OTHERS LEO McMANUS
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application by plaintiffs for an order for delivery up of documents Application by defendant for interpleader relief Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Finance Brokers Control Act 1975, s 74
Case References:	Nil Bolwell Fibreglass Pty Ltd v Foley [1984] VR 97 Branwhite v Worcester Works Finance Ltd [1969] 1 AC 552 Breen v Williams (1995) 186 CLR 71 Conlan v Registrar of Titles (2001) 24 WAR 299 Cordinup Resorts Pty Ltd v Terana Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 143 FLR 18 Eng Mee Yong v Letchumann [1980] AC 331 ERS Engines Pty Ltd v Wilson (1994) 35 NSWLR 193 Gibbon v Pease [1905] 1 KB 810 Gollan v Nugent (1988) 166 CLR 18 John F Goulding Pty Ltd v Victorian Railways (1932) 48 CLR 157 Lady Beresford v Driver (1851) 20 LJ (Ch) 476 Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Hamblin [1965] 2 QB 242 Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v Mosbert Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd [1976] WAR 109 Nash v Barnes [1922] 41 NZLR 303 Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120 CLR 365 Re Global Finance Group Pty Ltd (In Liq); Ex parte Read [1999] WASC 23 Re Oakleigh Acquisitions Pty Ltd (In Liq); Ex parte Conlan [2003] WASC 75 Sandgate Corporation Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Ionnou Nominees Pty Ltd (2000) 22 WAR 172 Valgas v Connell (1994) 120 FLR 345 Watson v Park Royal (Caterers) Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 727 Wentworth v de Montfort (1988) 15 NSWLR 348 Western National Plant Pty Ltd & Ors v Smith Broughton Pty Ltd & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980368; 26 June 1998 Wilson v Lombank Ltd [1963] 1 WLR 1294 Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co of Europe Ltd v Orion Marine Insurance Underwriting Agency Ltd [1995] QB 174

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : LINDSAY AND OTHERS -v- McMANUS [2003] WASC 162 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 8 AUGUST 2003 DELIVERED : 8 AUGUST 2003 PUBLISHED : 29 AUGUST 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1502 of 2003 BETWEEN : BRIAN DESMOND LINDSAY AND OTHERS

Plaintiffs

AND

LEO McMANUS

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application by plaintiffs for an order for delivery up of documents - Application by defendant for interpleader relief - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Finance Brokers Control Act 1975, s 74

Result:

Order for delivery up of documents

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : Mr D H Solomon & Mr J C Giles

Defendant : Mr P B O'Neal

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Solomon Brothers

Defendant : Raj Malhotra

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Bolwell Fibreglass Pty Ltd v…

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 Lindsay v McMAustralian National UniversityS

Details

AGLC: Lindsay v McMAustralian National UniversityS [2003] WASC 162
Case: [2003] WASC 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lindsay v McManus, the plaintiffs, companies and individuals who had invested in loans brokered by Geraldton Finance Company Ltd (GFC), sought an order for the delivery of certain documents in the defendant's possession. The defendant, who was the supervisor of GFC, argued that he had no further interest in the documents but was not in a position to determine which documents the plaintiffs were entitled to. The defendant sought interpleader relief to avoid liability if a third party claimed ownership of the documents. The court held that the plaintiffs were the only parties who wanted the documents and there was no third party likely to maintain a claim against the plaintiffs. The court ordered the documents to be delivered to the plaintiffs' solicitors, subject to certain undertakings. The court directed the parties to agree on a minute of orders or relist the matter for brief argument on costs.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the documents in the defendant's possession and whether the defendant could be compelled to determine which documents the plaintiffs were entitled to. The court held that the plaintiffs were likely entitled to most, if not all, of the documents. The court also held that the defendant could not be compelled to determine which documents the plaintiffs were entitled to, as it would be oppressive and beyond the defendant's powers under the Finance Brokers Control Act. The court ordered the documents to be delivered to the plaintiffs' solicitors, subject to certain undertakings, and directed the parties to agree on a minute of orders or relist the matter for brief argument on costs.

Orders