JUDGE:	ELLIOTT J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	26, 28 NOVEMBER; 1–4, 8–11, 17–18 DECEMBER 2014; 27, 28 JANUARY; 2–5, 9, 10, 12, 16–19, 23–26 FEBRUARY; 2, 11, 17, 18 MARCH 2015
FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:	24, 27 MARCH 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 NOVEMBER 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	NGUYEN v PHAN (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 634

---

EQUITY - trusts – express trusts – agreements - whether intention to create trusts manifest – certainty of intention – whether agreements existed – whether election not to perform agreement or purported agreement.

EQUITY – fiduciary duties – company directors – employees - whether duties as pleaded established.

CORPORATIONS – directors and officers – duties – whether duties as pleaded established.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleadings – issues confined to pleaded case.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr I G Waller QC with Mr H L Redd and Ms K L Burgess	Baker & McKenzie
For the Defendants	Mr M D Wyles QC with Dr T J F McEvoy and Mr D J Fahey	Arnold Bloch Liebler

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Introduction 1

B. Early days in Vietnam 4

C. The Phan family progressively settle in Australia 6

D. The Phan family 8

D.1The Parents........................................................................................................................... 8
D.2The Relevant Children........................................................................................................ 8
D.3The Family Members – further details............................................................................. 9
D.3.1.. Son and his family................................................................................................... 9
D.3.2.. Thuy and her family................................................................................................ 9
D.3.3.. Thomas, Tina and their family............................................................................ 10
D.3.4.. Nga, Minh and their family................................................................................. 12
D.3.5.. Tinh, Joseph and their family.............................................................................. 13

D.4Other family members...................................................................................................... 13
D.4.1.. The remaining Relevant Children: Tru and Danh........................................... 13
D.4.2.. The cousins: Vien and Francis............................................................................ 14
D.4.3.. Uncle Tu.................................................................................................................. 15

D.5The trusts............................................................................................................................ 15
D.5.1.. The PN Unit Trust................................................................................................. 15
D.5.2.. The Phan United Family Trust............................................................................ 21

D.6The family gatherings....................................................................................................... 25

E. Overview of the witnesses and their evidence 26

E.1Approach to assessing evidence...................................................................................... 26
E.2The plaintiffs’ witnesses................................................................................................... 26
E.2.1... Thuy......................................................................................................................... 26
E.2.2... Minh......................................................................................................................... 27
E.2.3... Joseph...................................................................................................................... 29
E.2.4... Son............................................................................................................................ 30
E.2.5... Customer witnesses............................................................................................... 31
E.2.6... Vien.......................................................................................................................... 31
E.2.7... Brown...................................................................................................................... 32
E.2.8... Tuanh....................................................................................................................... 32

E.3The defendants’ witnesses................................................................................................ 33
E.3.1... Linh.......................................................................................................................... 33
E.3.2... Danh........................................................................................................................ 33
E.3.3... Tuan......................................................................................................................... 34
E.3.4... Chinh....................................................................................................................... 35
E.3.5... Thomas.................................................................................................................... 35
E.3.6... Tina.......................................................................................................................... 39
E.3.7... Uncle Tu.................................................................................................................. 39

F. Further relevant events before the incorporation of Roo Sheetmetal 40

G. Roo Sheetmetal – 1999 to mid 2002 42

G.1The initial steps.................................................................................................................. 42
G.2Details of family members working at Roo Sheetmetal up to mid 2002................... 43
G.2.1.. Tina.......................................................................................................................... 44
G.2.2.. Son............................................................................................................................ 44
G.2.3.. Joseph...................................................................................................................... 45
G.2.4.. Thuy......................................................................................................................... 46

G.3Increased turnover for Roo Sheetmetal.......................................................................... 51
G.4Introduction of Thuy, Son and Joseph as “partners”................................................... 52

H. The 2002 Agreement 53

H.1The approach...................................................................................................................... 53
H.2A meeting is arranged....................................................................................................... 56
H.3Competing contentions..................................................................................................... 56
H.4The 2002 agreement was struck....................................................................................... 61
H.4.1.. Thomas’ generosity............................................................................................... 61
H.4.2.. Previous arrangement at Double T Sheetmetal................................................. 62
H.4.3.. Stocktake as at 1 July…

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 Nguyen v Phan (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Nguyen v Phan (No 2) [2015] VSC 634
Case: [2015] VSC 634
Decision Date: 24 NOVEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Nguyen v Phan (No 2) involved the plaintiffs, Nguyen and his wife, who brought an action against the defendants, Phan and his wife, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiffs sought to establish the existence of express trusts over certain properties, as well as to enforce fiduciary duties allegedly breached by the defendants in their capacities as company directors and employees. The plaintiffs also sought an order for the defendants to perform certain agreements, or to pay damages for their purported breach.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the agreements between the parties manifested an intention to create trusts, whether the terms of the trusts were sufficiently certain, whether the fiduciary duties as pleaded by the plaintiffs were established, and whether the court should confine its findings to the issues raised in the pleadings. The court also had to determine whether the defendants had elected not to perform the agreements in question.

In its reasoning, the court found that the agreements between the parties did not manifest an intention to create trusts over the properties in question, as the evidence did not establish the requisite certainty of intention. The court further held that the fiduciary duties as pleaded by the plaintiffs were not established, as the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. Additionally, the court determined that the issues before it were confined to those raised in the pleadings, and therefore, it would not consider any other matters not pleaded by the parties. As a result, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, and the defendants were not required to perform the agreements in question, or to pay damages for their purported breach.

Orders