Legal Research
Cases
Miller v Martin

Miller v Martin

Case [2020] VSCA 4 30 January 2020

Statutory Interpretation

Property Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2018 0114
S APCI 2018 0137

JAMES EDWARD MILLER	Applicant
v
IAN DONALD MARTIN and others according to the schedule	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	NIALL, HARGRAVE and ASHLEY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 December 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 January 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 4
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VSC 444; Miller v Martin (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Mukhtar AsJ, 13 August 2018)

---

REAL PROPERTY – Co-ownership of land – Whether co-owned property held on resulting or constructive trust or as partnership property – Whether power of sale under Property Law Act 1958 s 233 required consideration of entitlements upon dissolution of partnership – Property had ceased to be partnership property – Property Law Act 1958 ss 228 and 233.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for reinstatement of appeal - Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r 64.45 – Summons seeking production of respondents’ solicitors’ files devoid of merit and bound to fail – Reinstatement refused.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under Property Law Act 1958 s 234C – Whether ‘the matter which is the subject of the application relates to a proceeding under the Partnership Act 1958’ – ‘Proceeding under’ an Act where authorised by, provided for, or in respect of a cause of action created by the Act – ‘Proceeding’ where jurisdiction invoked by an initiating process – No ‘proceeding under’ Partnership Act 1958 – Property Law Act 1958 pt IV considered – Re Struthers (liq of Project Management, Architecture and Construction Interior Pty Ltd) (No 3) (2005) 56 ACSR 238; [2005] NSWSC 1113 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Respondents	Mr D G Collins QC with Mr R G Squirrell	GE Law Services Pty Ltd

NIALL JA
HARGRAVE JA
ASHLEY JA:

About 40 years ago, James Miller, Ian Martin and Ross Brabham were working together in the Finance Department of GJ Coles & Co Limited and then Coles Myer Limited. As General Manager, Miller was the senior employee. The three men and their wives became good friends. Martin and Brabham say that they formed a partnership with Miller in the early 1980s, for the purpose of trading in shares for profit and using the profits to purchase ‘quality of life investments’ or ‘lifestyle assets’ for their collective benefit in equal shares. Although Miller acknowledged the existence of the partnership at various times over the years, he now firmly denies there was ever a partnership. Following a seven day hearing in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’ or ‘the Tribunal’), the Tribunal found that there had been a partnership (‘partnership finding’) and that it had acquired various lifestyle assets in the names of the three men including a beach house at Moggs Creek, Victoria.[1]
[1]Miller v Martin [2016] VCAT 854 (‘VCAT Reasons’).

The beach house was purchased in late 1986 and the purchase was settled…

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 Miller v Martin

Details

AGLC: Miller v Martin [2020] VSCA 4
Case: [2020] VSCA 4
Decision Date: 30 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Miller v Martin, the dispute revolved around the co-ownership of a property and the applicable legal framework governing its status. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the property in question was held on a resulting or constructive trust or if it was considered partnership property. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the power of sale under the Property Law Act 1958 section 233 necessitated consideration of the entitlements upon dissolution of a partnership. The case hinged on whether the property had ceased to be partnership property, which would trigger the application of sections 228 and 233 of the Property Law Act 1958.

The court examined the legal principles underlying co-ownership and the distinctions between resulting or constructive trusts and partnership property. It scrutinised whether the property was subject to the provisions of the Property Law Act 1958 due to its prior status as partnership property and if the dissolution of the partnership altered its legal standing. The court also considered whether the power of sale under section 233 required the court to take into account the entitlements of the partners if the property had indeed ceased to be partnership property. The decision turned on the interpretation of statutory provisions and their application to the facts of the case.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the property had ceased to be partnership property, and thus, the relevant sections of the Property Law Act 1958 applied. The court found that the power of sale did not require consideration of the partners' entitlements upon dissolution of the partnership because the property was no longer partnership property. The court further ruled that the summons seeking the production of the respondents' solicitors' files was devoid of merit and bound to fail, resulting in the refusal of the application for reinstatement of the appeal. The court also determined that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal did not have jurisdiction under the Property Law Act 1958 section 234C as the matter did not relate to a proceeding under the Partnership Act 1958.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for reinstatement of the appeal and to refuse the summons for the production of the respondents' solicitors' files. The court also found that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the matter, as it did not pertain to a proceeding under the Partnership Act 1958. This decision provided clarity on the legal status of the co-owned property and the applicable statutory provisions governing its sale.

Orders