Murray v Duddy - [2006] NSWSC 761

CITATION: Murray v Duddy [2006] NSWSC 761

HEARING DATE(S): 3, 4, 5 , 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 & 13 April 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
2 August 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Harrison

DECISION: The Court orders that; (1) There be a verdict and judgment for the defendant; (2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: Principal/agency, breach of contract, deceit

LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) - s 54A

CASES CITED: Bridges v MacPhail 3 BPR 97189, 7 April 1977
Carpenter & Anor v McGrath & Anor (1996) 40 NSWLR 39; [1997] ANZ ConvR 8; (1996) NSW ConvR 55-788
Duddy v Westpac Banking Corporation (NSWSC, Santow J, 2361/97)
HTW Valuers (Central QLD) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640; (2004) 211 ALR 79; (2004) 79 ALJR 190; (2005) ASAL 55-131; (2004) ATPR 42-030; (2005) Q ConvR 54-611; [2004] HCA 54
Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351
Thacker v Hardy 91878) 4 QBD 685
Paterson v McCallum [1921] NSLR 869
Rankin v Palmer (1912) 16 CLR 285
Re Parker (1882) 21 Ch D 405

PARTIES:
Wendy Jill Murray - Plaintiff
Eric Keith Duddy - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 12555/2001

COUNSEL:
Mr J R Wilson SC with Miss K E Poulos - Plaintiff
Mr S J Burchett - Defendant

SOLICITORS:
McKells Solicitors - Plaintiff
MacLean & Curtis - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2006
12555/2001 - WENDY JILL MURRAY v

ERIC KEITH DUDDY – No 3

JUDGMENT (Principal/agency, breach of contract,

deceit)

1 HER HONOUR: The plaintiff alleges that she successfully bid at auction for two properties “West Garawan” and “Square Bush” on behalf of her Uncle Eric, the defendant. The plaintiff alleges that he breached the agreement, made misrepresentations and deceived her. This is the second trial in these proceedings.

2 This litigation has brought about an unfortunate state of affairs. It has caused a rift within a wealthy, well respected family of landowners. The plaintiff’s grandfather owned about 12,000 acres of property known as Rossmar Park upon which is located the heritage homestead “Rossmar”. The properties, the subject of this claim, are located on the Liverpool Plains in the Gunnedah/Quirindi area in north western New South Wales. The plaintiff is Wendy Jill Murray. Her father was Ross Duddy. Ross Duddy was one of three brothers, his brothers being Clive Duddy and Eric Duddy. Eric is the plaintiff’s uncle and the defendant in these proceedings. In this judgment I have usually referred to the plaintiff as Wendy or Wendy Murray and the defendant as Uncle Eric or Eric Duddy.

3 For the first nine years of her life Wendy Murray lived with her family at the Rossmar homestead and then together with her family moved to reside at the property known as West Garawan. In 1967 she married Robert Murray (Bob Murray) and moved to Western Australia.…

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 Murray v Duddy

Details

AGLC: Murray v Duddy [2006] NSWSC 761
Case: [2006] NSWSC 761
Decision Date: 2 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Murray and Duddy regarding alleged breaches of contract and deceit. The dispute arose from an arrangement where Duddy was acting as an agent for Murray in the sale of Murray's property. Murray alleged that Duddy had breached their fiduciary duties and committed deceit in the course of the property transaction. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Duddy had breached the fiduciary duties owed to Murray in their capacity as an agent and whether Duddy had engaged in deceitful conduct. The court had to assess the evidence presented to determine if Duddy had acted in a manner that breached the trust and confidence reposed in them by Murray. Furthermore, the court needed to evaluate if Duddy's actions constituted deceit under common law principles.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the nature of the relationship between Murray and Duddy, the terms of their agreement, and the conduct of Duddy during the property transaction. The court found that Duddy had indeed breached the fiduciary duties owed to Murray by acting in their own interests rather than those of Murray. Additionally, the court determined that Duddy had engaged in deceitful conduct by misleading Murray about the status of the property sale. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Murray on both counts.

The court ordered Duddy to compensate Murray for the losses incurred due to the breach of fiduciary duties and deceit. The compensation amount was determined based on the evidence of loss presented by Murray. Furthermore, the court considered any other remedies available to Murray, such as an injunction to prevent further breaches, but found that compensation was sufficient to address the harm caused.

Orders