Morris v Hanley and 10 Ors - [2004] NSWCA 41

CITATION: Morris v Hanley & 10 Ors [2004] NSWCA 41

HEARING DATE(S): 17/02/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 69; Sheller JA at 70; Ipp JA at 2

DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - Employee entitlement to benefits arising from articles of association - Where contract of employment entered into before became aware of any entitlement to benefits - EQUITY - Fiduciary relationship - Extent of fiduciary duty not defined - TORT - Conspiracy - No intention to harm the appellant - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Function of Court of Appeal - Appealable error must be shown. ND

CASES CITED: Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201
McWilliam v Penthouse Publications Limited (2001) NSWCA 237
Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107

PARTIES :
Janine Morris (Appellant)
Jack Norman Hanley (First Respondent)
Geoffrey Donald Reid (Second Respondent)
Lynda Maree Cole (Third Respondent)
Christine Valmae Hayward (Fourth Respondent)
Anthony Bodycote (Fifth Respondent)
Robyn Janelle Haydon (Sixth Respondent)
Daphne Olive Boyd (Seventh Respondent)
Beverley Joy Armfield (Eighth Respondent)
Gayle Hanley (Ninth Respondent)
Cecil Bellchambers (Tenth Respondent)
Mariani Holdings Pty Limited (Eleventh Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40185/03

COUNSEL: In Person (Appellant)
P T Taylor SC (Respondents)

SOLICITORS: In Person (Appellant)
Parker & Kissane (Respondents)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2650/97

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Hamilton J

CA 40185/03
SC 2650/97

MEAGHER JA
SHELLER JA
IPP JA
Tuesday 17 February 2004

JANINE MORRIS v JACK NORMAN HANLEY & 10 ORS

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: The Court is now in a position to give judgment. I will ask Ipp JA to give the first judgment.

2 IPP JA: Before dealing with the issues raised by this appeal, I think it appropriate to refer to some of the difficulties that occurred during the hearing of the appeal.

3 The appellant is not represented and while she struggled valiantly with the task before her, it was plainly too much for her to carry out properly. There are some twelve volumes of evidence, the pleadings are complex, the grounds of appeal not properly identified and this was not the kind of matter that an unrepresented litigant could present to the Court with any facility.

4 The appellant was assisted by her husband and brother-in-law and this compounded rather than alleviated the difficulties. During much of the argument, discussion took place between the persons assisting the appellant and the appellant. Often she simply repeated what she was told, apparently not always understanding what was said. There were long pauses between questions and answers and generally this method of presenting the argument made the task of the Court far more difficult than it otherwise would have been.

5 There were other difficulties in the case.

6 On 29 July 2003 the appellant filed her submissions of forty six pages. On 31 July 2003 the registrar gave directions including granting the appellant leave to amend her submissions by expanding…

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 Morris v Hanley and 10 Ors 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: [2004] NSWCA 41
Decision Date: 17 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morris, the appellant, brought proceedings against Hanley and ten other respondents, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and conspiracy. The dispute concerned employee entitlements arising from the company's articles of association, which the appellant claimed to be entitled to, despite entering into his employment contract before becoming aware of these potential benefits. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the respondents owed fiduciary duties to the appellant, the extent of any such duties, and whether their actions constituted a conspiracy to harm the appellant. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether any errors made by the lower court were appealable.

The Court found that the respondents did not owe fiduciary duties to the appellant in the manner alleged, as the scope of any such duty was not sufficiently defined. Regarding the conspiracy claim, the Court held that there was no evidence to establish an intention on the part of the respondents to harm the appellant. The Court reiterated the principle that an appeal to the Court of Appeal requires demonstration of appealable error by the court below.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with 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.

CITATION:	Morris v Hanley & 10 Ors [2004] NSWCA 41
HEARING DATE(S):	17/02/04
JUDGMENT DATE:	17 February 2004
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 69; Sheller JA at 70; Ipp JA at 2
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CORPORATIONS - Employee entitlement to benefits arising from articles of association - Where contract of employment entered into before became aware of any entitlement to benefits - EQUITY - Fiduciary relationship - Extent of fiduciary duty not defined - TORT - Conspiracy - No intention to harm the appellant - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Function of Court of Appeal - Appealable error must be shown. ND
CASES CITED:	Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201 McWilliam v Penthouse Publications Limited (2001) NSWCA 237 Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107
PARTIES :	Janine Morris (Appellant) Jack Norman Hanley (First Respondent) Geoffrey Donald Reid (Second Respondent) Lynda Maree Cole (Third Respondent) Christine Valmae Hayward (Fourth Respondent) Anthony Bodycote (Fifth Respondent) Robyn Janelle Haydon (Sixth Respondent) Daphne Olive Boyd (Seventh Respondent) Beverley Joy Armfield (Eighth Respondent) Gayle Hanley (Ninth Respondent) Cecil Bellchambers (Tenth Respondent) Mariani Holdings Pty Limited (Eleventh Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40185/03
COUNSEL:	In Person (Appellant) P T Taylor SC (Respondents)
SOLICITORS:	In Person (Appellant) Parker & Kissane (Respondents)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2650/97
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Hamilton J