SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Nathan v Williams & Anor [2020] QCA 138
PARTIES:
JULIAN PAUL ELIZER NATHAN
(appellant)
v
DANIEL SATKUNAM BALARAJAN WILLIAMS
(first respondent)
NATHAN LAWYERS BRISBANE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 154 104 426
(second respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 7325 of 2019
SC No 12663 of 2018DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 127; [2019] QSC 150 (Boddice J)
DELIVERED ON:
23 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 October 2019
JUDGES:
Sofronoff P and Philippides JA and Brown J
ORDERS:
1. Order 1(b) of the Orders made on 14 June 2019 is set aside;
2. The appeal is otherwise dismissed; and
3. The parties are to provide submissions of no more than three pages as to costs within 14 days of these reasons being published.
CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – IMPLIED TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – COMMON INTENTION – where the second respondent was an incorporated legal practice – where the appellant and first respondent had agreed to operate separate practices through the second respondent – where the appellant and first respondent each held equal shareholding in the second respondent – where the second respondent was ordered to be wound up – where the first respondent contended the second respondent held each practice for the appellant and first respondent under a common intention constructive trust – where the trial judge found that the second respondent held the separate practices on constructive trust for the appellant and first respondent – where the appellant contends that the second respondent did not hold each practice on trust for the appellant and first respondent – where the appellant contends that the corporate structure governed the distribution and the appellant and first respondent are entitled to 50 per cent of the surplus assets of the second respondent – where the trial judge found the appellant was not a credible witness – whether objective facts not considered – whether the second respondent held the separate practices on trust for the appellant and first respondent
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – AMENDING, VARYING AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – LIBERTY TO APPLY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the learned trial judge found that a debt of a third party was not a debt of the second respondent – where the third party creditor was not a party to the proceeding – where the appellant contended that orders should not have been made in the absence of an entity whose rights were directly affected – whether the learned trial judge erred in ordering that the debt should not be admitted by the liquidators of the second respondent
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – AMENDING, VARYING AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – LIBERTY TO APPLY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where orders excluded prospective and contingent creditors of the first respondent and…
Continue reading Nathan v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Nathan v Williams [2020] QCA 138
- Case
- [2020] QCA 138
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the second respondent held the separate practices on trust for Nathan and Williams and whether the trial judge erred in ordering that a debt of a third party should not be admitted by the liquidators of the second respondent. The court also needed to determine whether the orders were inconsistent with the common intention constructive trust and whether they were discriminatory against Nathan.
The court found that Nathan had failed to substantiate his appeal on all grounds, save in respect of ground 8 relating to the BOQ Debt and order 1(b) of the orders of the Court below made on 14 June 2019. The court held that the reference to “actual drawings” in the trial judge’s decision may have been referring to profit and was therefore in error, but it had no consequence for the overall findings. The court found that the orders were not inconsistent with the common intention constructive trust and that there was no evidence of discrimination against Nathan. The court concluded that the orders should be set aside in part and the appeal should otherwise be dismissed. The parties were to provide submissions of no more than three pages as to costs within 14 days of these reasons being published.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Order 1(b) of the Orders made on 14 June 2019 is set aside;
2. The appeal is otherwise dismissed; and
3. The parties are to provide submissions of no more than three pages as to costs within 14 days of these reasons being published.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.