Legal Research
Cases
Morais v Mills

Morais v Mills

Case [2010] QDC 237 11 June 2010

Contract Formation

Unconscionable Conduct

Undue Influence

Detinue and Conversion

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morais & Anor v Mills [2010] QDC 237

PARTIES:

EDWARD MORAIS AND VIRGINIA MORAIS
(Plaintiffs)

V

JAMES MILLS
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

DC 1308 of 2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

District Court at Brisbane

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

18, 19 March 2010, 31 May 2010, 1 June 2010.

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDERS:

That the defendant pay to the plaintiffs the amount of $8, 326.61.1.

That the plaintiffs deliver up to the defendant all items of personal property identified in paragraph 30 of the counter-claim of the defendant filed 30 June 2009, other than items 1c, 1d, 1e, 1l, 2g (apart from the TV stand and DVD player), 2k and 2r, on a date to be agreed by the parties, and failing such agreement on Sunday, 27 June 2010, at 12 Front Court, Marsden, with such removal to be at the defendant’s cost.2.

That the defendant pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the claim, fixed at 10% of the assessed costs on the standard basis.3.

That the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the counter-claim, fixed at 10% of the assessed costs on the standard basis, and including the reserved costs of 24 June 2009 fully assed on the standard basis.4.

5.          Liberty to apply within 14 days concerning costs.

CATCHWORDS:

INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS – family arrangements – inferred contract – fiduciary relationship – unconscionable conduct – undue influence – detinue and conversion

Residential Tenancies Act 1994, s 8, 15, 18, 22, ss 35 to 46 (inclusive).

GAD v DPP(Qld) & Anor [2008] QCA 27

John Alexander’s Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd [2010] HCA 19

Quince v Varga [2009] 1 Qd R 359

Benzlaw & Associates Pty Ltd v Medi-Aid Centre Foundation Ltd [2007] QSC 233

Reed Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 345

Integrated Computer Services Pty Ltd v Digital Equipment Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR, 11,110

Brambles Holdings v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153

Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in liq) v Newtronics Pty Ltd(Receivers and Managers appointed)(in liq) [2009] VSCA 238

Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424

The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2008] WASC 239

Williams v Mallouf [2005] VSC 346

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447

Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR at 457

Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 74

ACCC v CG Berbatis Holding Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51

Brusewitz v Brown [1923] NZR 1106

Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell (2008) 236 CLR 101

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (2007) 232 CLR 1

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355

Lyte et Ux v Peny (1541) 1 Dyer 49; 73 E.R. 108

Maynegrain 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 Morais v Mills

Details

AGLC: Morais v Mills [2010] QDC 237
Case: [2010] QDC 237
Decision Date: 11 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Morais, sued the defendant, Mills, in the Supreme Court of Queensland, over a dispute regarding personal property following a relationship breakdown. The plaintiffs sought the return of personal property and damages for detinue and conversion, while the defendant counterclaimed for unpaid rent. The central legal issues were whether there was an intention to create legal relations between the parties, if the defendant's conduct was unconscionable, and whether the defendant could claim rent under the alleged agreement.

The court considered whether the parties' conduct demonstrated an intention to create legal relations, focusing on the nature of their relationship and the context of their arrangements. The court determined that the parties did not intend their arrangements to be legally binding. However, the court found that the defendant had engaged in unconscionable conduct by taking advantage of the plaintiffs' vulnerability, and that the defendant was liable for detinue and conversion of the plaintiffs' property. The court rejected the defendant's claim for unpaid rent, finding that the counterclaim was not supported by the evidence.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs $8,326.61 and return the specified personal property. The court also directed the parties to pay each other's costs of the claim and counterclaim. The plaintiffs were given liberty to apply for further costs within 14 days. The court's decision highlights the importance of assessing the intention to create legal relations in family arrangements and the potential for unconscionable conduct in such contexts.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the defendant pay to the plaintiffs the amount of $8, 326.61.1.

That the plaintiffs deliver up to the defendant all items of personal property identified in paragraph 30 of the counter-claim of the defendant filed 30 June 2009, other than items 1c, 1d, 1e, 1l, 2g (apart from the TV stand and DVD player), 2k and 2r, on a date to be agreed by the parties, and failing such agreement on Sunday, 27 June 2010, at 12 Front Court, Marsden, with such removal to be at the defendant’s cost.2.

That the defendant pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the claim, fixed at 10% of the assessed costs on the standard basis.3.

That the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the counter-claim, fixed at 10% of the assessed costs on the standard basis, and including the reserved costs of 24 June 2009 fully assed on the standard basis.4.

5. Liberty to apply within 14 days concerning costs.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Morais v Mills [2010] QDC 237

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 23 of 23 shown

John Alexander's Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd
[2010] HCA 19 Para 1

…it is owed. This passage was expressly referred to in the recent High Court decision of John Alexander’s Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd [2010] HCA 19 at [86]-[87]. Important points made by that unanimous judgement include: that phrases such as “for or on behalf of” (and “in the interests of”) must be…
Reed Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd
[2009] QSC 345 Para 1

…In Reed Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 345, Daubney J referred to this concept of contracts being inferred from the conduct of the parties. He referred, in particular, to McHugh JA (as he then was) in Integrated Computer Services Pty Ltd v Digital Equipment Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd…
Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in liq) v Newtronics Pty Ltd
[2009] VSCA 238 Para 1

…inciple of inference, the Victorian Court of Appeal in Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in liq) v Newtronics Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed)(in liq) [2009] VSCA 238 held, in the circumstances of that case, that it could not realistically be supposed that the parties “intended to bind themselves to an agreement of…
Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell
[2008] HCA 38 Para 1

…red into in contravention of legislative requirements, such was considered by the High Court recently in Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell (2008) 236 CLR 101. There, it was expressly held by the Court, in the joint judgment, that it is not to be assumed that the common law sanction is to apply in the case…
GAD v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)
[2008] QCA 27 Para 1

…elationship to one another, and other surrounding circumstances: at 105 [25]. As noted by Keane JA, speaking for the court, in GAD v DPP (Qld) & Anor [2008] QCA 27, the task of determining the meaning of any agreement requires the objective determination of what the terms of the agreement mean, rather than the s…
Benzlaw & Associates Pty Ltd v Medi-Aid Centre Foundation Ltd
[2007] QSC 233 Para 1

…d, in Quince v Varga [2009] 1 Qd R 359. Quoting from Muir J, as his Honour then was, in Benzlaw & Associates Pty Ltd v Medi-Aid Centre Foundation Ltd [2007] QSC 233 at [84]-[88], the following matters were canvassed:…
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd
[2007] HCA 38 Para 1

…ect, holding that the correct approach to such a question was explained in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (2007) 232 CLR 1 at 29 [45] – [46]: at 107 [11]. In Baxter Healthcare, the explanation of that correct approach included a recognition that: the general principle is…
Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd
[2007] QCA 74 Para 1

…As recently explored by Keane JA, with whom de Jersey CJ and Mullins J expressly agreed, in Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 74, the decision of the High Court in ACCC v CG Berbatis Holding Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51 has made it clear that this equitable doctrine is concerned to prevent a party taking u…
Williams v Maalouf
[2005] VSC 346 Para 1

…As Hargraves J observed in Williams v Mallouf [2005] VSC 346, the applicable law is not in doubt because of the High Court’s consideration of it in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447. There, the equitable jurisdiction to set aside a transaction on the ground of unconscionable conduct was…
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd
[2003] HCA 18 Para 1

…nd Mullins J expressly agreed, in Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 74, the decision of the High Court in ACCC v CG Berbatis Holding Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51 has made it clear that this equitable doctrine is concerned to prevent a party taking unconscientious advantage of legal rights against another, wher…
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc
[2002] HCA 8 Para 1

…immutable until this apparent and attractive certainty was altered by the High Court’s decision in Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95: see Nadine Courmadias, Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95, at 175.…
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd
[2001] FCA 1833 Para 1

…certainty can be provided: at [29]-[30]. The court then referred to the judgment of Alsop J in Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424, at 525 where he held that the essential question in such cases is whether the parties’ conduct, including what was said and not said, and including the ev…
Bridgewater v Leahy
[1998] HCA 66

…anking Corporation [2008] WASC 239 Williams v Mallouf [2005] VSC 346 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR at 457 Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 74 ACCC v CG Berbatis Holding Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51 Brusewitz v Brown [1923] NZR 1106 Master Education Serv…
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority
[1998] HCA 53 Para 1

…by a non-complying franchisor “is to be void and unenforceable”, noting that in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 it was pointed out that it is necessary to ask whether it is a purpose of the legislation that an act in breach of the provision should be invalid, and that, in…
Louth v Diprose
[1992] HCA 61 Para 1

…ut the alleged infatuation for Tarita Morais by James Mills. In particular, great emphasis was placed upon the High Court decision in Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621. As the headnote accurately states, a man of comparatively modest means gave $58,000 to a woman, with whom he was infatuated but who was largely indi…
Integrated Computer Services Pty Ltd v Digital Equipment Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd
[1992] NSWCA 168 Para 1

…J referred to this concept of contracts being inferred from the conduct of the parties. He referred, in particular, to McHugh JA (as he then was) in Integrated Computer Services Pty Ltd v Digital Equipment Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR, 11,110 at 11,117 where the statement was made that a contract may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the parties as well as, or in the a…
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation
[1984] HCA 64 Para 1

…As referred to in that text, for non-established categories Mason J in Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp (1984) 156 CLR 41, at 96-97 stated that the critical feature of accepted fiduciary relationships is that the fiduciary undertakes, or agrees, to act for or on behalf of, or in the interests of,…
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio
[1983] HCA 14 Para 1

…ouf [2005] VSC 346, the applicable law is not in doubt because of the High Court’s consideration of it in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447. There, the equitable jurisdiction to set aside a transaction on the ground of unconscionable conduct was considered in the circumstances of a party to…
Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 9 Para 1

…urchased. Since Virginia Morais did not give evidence, this is certainly one circumstance where an adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. According, the plaintiffs’ claim can not succeed with respect to the sum of $5,000.00.…
Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 8 Para 1

…Virginia Morais did not give evidence, this is certainly one circumstance where an adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. According, the plaintiffs’ claim can not succeed with respect to the sum of $5,000.00.…
Paroz v Paroz
[2010] QSC 041 Para 1

…l not be made against a party if the party demonstrates that the transaction itself was “fair, just and reasonable” (per Lyons J in Paroz v Paroz [2010] QSC 041 at [69]). Deane J dealt with the relationship between the parties in the following terms: there was an extreme contrast between their respective attitude…
[2001] NSWCA 61
[2001] NSWCA 61 Para 1

…[54]. As further noted by Daubney J, this passage was cited with approval by Heydon JA (as he then was) in Brambles Holdings v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153 at 178: at [55].…
[2008] WASC 239
[2008] WASC 239 Para 1

…ssential elements of the contract: at [36]. Lastly, reference was made to Owen J in The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2008] WASC 239. Referring to inferred contracts, he noted that it is a search for the “objective intention” of each party, to be inferred from what is manifested by the par…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Residential Tenancies Act 1994 (Qld)
15, 18, 22, 8 5 mentions (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Morais & Anor v Mills [2010] QDC 237
PARTIES:	EDWARD MORAIS AND VIRGINIA MORAIS (Plaintiffs) V JAMES MILLS (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	DC 1308 of 2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	District Court at Brisbane
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	18, 19 March 2010, 31 May 2010, 1 June 2010.
JUDGE:	Dorney QC DCJ
ORDERS:	That the defendant pay to the plaintiffs the amount of $8, 326.61.1. That the plaintiffs deliver up to the defendant all items of personal property identified in paragraph 30 of the counter-claim of the defendant filed 30 June 2009, other than items 1c, 1d, 1e, 1l, 2g (apart from the TV stand and DVD player), 2k and 2r, on a date to be agreed by the parties, and failing such agreement on Sunday, 27 June 2010, at 12 Front Court, Marsden, with such removal to be at the defendant’s cost.2. That the defendant pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the claim, fixed at 10% of the assessed costs on the standard basis.3. That the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the counter-claim, fixed at 10% of the assessed costs on the standard basis, and including the reserved costs of 24 June 2009 fully assed on the standard basis.4. 5. Liberty to apply within 14 days concerning costs.
CATCHWORDS:	INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS – family arrangements – inferred contract – fiduciary relationship – unconscionable conduct – undue influence – detinue and conversion Residential Tenancies Act 1994, s 8, 15, 18, 22, ss 35 to 46 (inclusive). GAD v DPP(Qld) & Anor [2008] QCA 27 John Alexander’s Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd [2010] HCA 19 Quince v Varga [2009] 1 Qd R 359 Benzlaw & Associates Pty Ltd v Medi-Aid Centre Foundation Ltd [2007] QSC 233 Reed Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 345 Integrated Computer Services Pty Ltd v Digital Equipment Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR, 11,110 Brambles Holdings v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153 Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in liq) v Newtronics Pty Ltd(Receivers and Managers appointed)(in liq) [2009] VSCA 238 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2008] WASC 239 Williams v Mallouf [2005] VSC 346 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR at 457 Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 74 ACCC v CG Berbatis Holding Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51 Brusewitz v Brown [1923] NZR 1106 Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell (2008) 236 CLR 101 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (2007) 232 CLR 1 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Lyte et Ux v Peny (1541) 1 Dyer 49; 73 E.R. 108 Maynegrain Pty Ltd v…