Madden v Madden - [2014] NSWSC 1098

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Madden v Madden [2014] NSWSC 1098
Hearing dates: 7 August 2014
Decision date: 07 August 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Application for leave to re-open refused

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - application by plaintiff to re-open case after judgment pronounced but before final orders entered - material relied on in support of application available but not tendered at the hearing - whether material is of probative value - whether material contradictory of evidence already given by the plaintiff - whether delay in the application prejudicial to the defendants
Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) [1993] HCA 6; 176 CLR 300
Falloon v Madden; Madden v Madden [2012] NSWSC 652
Madden v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy and Prentice [2014] FCA 446
Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council (No 2) [1982] HCA 41; 149 CLR 672
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Alexander William Madden (Plaintiff)
Michael Patrick Madden as executor of the estate of the late Margaret Rose Falloon (First Defendant)
Eve Karen Falloon (Second Defendant)
Chad Russell Falloon (Third Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
M B Evans (Plaintiff)
R N O'Neill (Second and Third Defendants)
Solicitors:
Abraham Legal Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Coleman Greig Lawyers (Second and Third Defendants)

File Number(s): SC 2011/25063

EX TEMPORE Judgment (revised)

Introduction

I heard these proceedings on 16 and 17 April, 3 May and 13 June 2012 and gave judgment on 14 June 2012 (Falloon v Madden; Madden v Madden [2012] NSWSC 652) ("the judgment"). In these reasons I shall use the defined expressions adopted in the judgment, and will not, except so far as is necessary, set out the background or reasoning in the judgment.

A central issue before me in 2012 was the extent to which Bill paid for the purchase, in Margaret's name, of the Woolooware property. I concluded (at [135] of the judgment) that Bill and Margaret contributed very nearly equally to the purchase price of Woolooware and that it followed that Margaret's estate held 50.5 per cent of the interest in Woolooware on a resulting trust for Bill (at [137] of the judgment).

Another issue before me was the source of funds used, on 23 December 2004, to discharge the Radcliffe debt secured by mortgage over the Woolooware property. I accepted Bill's evidence that the source of those funds was the proceeds of sale of the Exceller Avenue property, which, at the relevant time, was registered in the name of Woolooware Investments (see [188] to [190] of the judgment). However, as I could not come to any conclusion as to whether Bill made any financial contribution to the purchase of the Exceller Avenue property, I could reach no conclusion concerning Bill's claim that Margaret's estate was indebted to him in an amount equal to the payout of the Radcliffe loan (see [191] of the judgment).

As a number of matters remained for consideration following delivery of my judgment of 14 June 2012, no…

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 Madden v Madden

Details

AGLC: Madden v Madden [2014] NSWSC 1098
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1098
Decision Date: 07 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Madden v Madden was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff sought to reopen the case after judgment had been pronounced but before final orders were entered. The plaintiff's application was based on the availability of additional material that had not been tendered at the hearing. The central issue before the court was whether this new material held sufficient probative value to warrant reopening the case. Additionally, the court needed to determine if this material contradicted the evidence already provided by the plaintiff and assess whether the delay in presenting the application would cause prejudice to the defendants.

The court considered that the material in question, while available, did not possess the requisite probative value to justify reopening the case. Furthermore, it was noted that the content of this material did not significantly contradict the evidence already presented by the plaintiff. The court also evaluated the potential prejudice to the defendants due to the delay in submitting the application. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that the delay was not so prejudicial as to warrant reopening the case. Consequently, the application to reopen the case was dismissed.

In light of the court's decision, the plaintiff's application to reopen the case was denied. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of probative value, consistency with existing evidence, and the potential prejudice to the opposing party in determining whether to allow a case to be reopened post-judgment. The court did not enter any final orders as the application was dismissed.

Orders