Legal Research
Cases
Oates v Hawkins

Oates v Hawkins

Case [2010] NSWSC 491 25 May 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Oates v Hawkins [2010] NSWSC 491

HEARING DATE(S): 31 March 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
25 May 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Bergin CJ in Eq

DECISION: Parts of the pleading struck out.

CATCHWORDS: PLEADINGS - Application to strike out claims alleged to be the subject of findings in previous proceedings - whether plaintiff entitled to bring a claim under s 1324 of the Corporations Act - various other claims

LEGISLATION CITED: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth)
Conveyancing Act 1919
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
District Court Act 1973
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CASES CITED: Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552
Allen v Atalay (1993) 11 ACSR 753
Bazos v Doman [2001] NSWCA 347
Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Bell Resources Ltd (1984) 2 ACLC 157
Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pty Ltd (2009) 180 FCR 11
Crawley v Short (2009) 262 ALR 654
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853
D A Christie Pty Ltd v Baker [1996] 2 VR 582
Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission (2007) 164 FCR 224
Goldrei, Foucard & Son v Sinclair and Russian Chamber of Commerce in London [1918] 1 KB 180
Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 220 CLR 363
Meriton Apartments Pty Limited v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 434
Mesenberg v Cord Industrial Recruiters Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 128
Natureland Parks Pty Ltd v My-Life Corporation Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 237
Oates v Consolidated Capital Services Ltd [2008] NSWSC 464
Oates v Consolidated Capital Services Ltd [2009] NSWCA 183
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Re Luck (2003) 78 ALJR 177
Swansson v R A Pratt Properties Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 583; (2002) 42 ACSR 313
Tagget v Sexton [2009] NSWCA 91
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598

TEXTS CITED: Spencer Bower and Handley, Res Judicata, 4th edn (2009)

PARTIES: Tom Michael Oates (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Garrick Michael Hawkins (First Defendant/Applicant)
Scott Francis Tyne (Second Defendant/Applicant)
Consolidated Capital Limited UK (Third Defendant)
Credit and Commercial Finance Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant/Applicant)
Evelyn Hawkins (Fifth Defendant/Applicant)
Gillian Tyne (Sixth Defendant/Applicant)
Sea Power Holdings Limited (Seventh Defendant)
Pegela Pty Ltd (Eight Defendant/Applicant)
Consolidated Capital Services Pty Limited (Ninth Defendant/Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/00290344 (4392/09)

COUNSEL: M Leeming SC / J Hewitt (Plaintiff / Respondent)
J Gleeson SC / J Hogan-Doran (First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Defendants / Applicants)

SOLICITORS: Thompson Eslick Solicitors (Plaintiff / Respondent)
Eakin McCaffery Cox (First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Defendants / Applicants)

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BERGIN CJ in Eq

25 MAY 2010

2009/290344 TOM MICHAEL OATES v GARRICK MICHAEL HAWKINS & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 This is an application to strike out the plaintiff’s Further Amended Statement of Claim (the SOC). The plaintiff, Tom Michael Oates, makes claims against the defendants in respect of alleged fraudulent conduct in relation to transactions involving Matrix…

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 Oates v Hawkins

Details

AGLC: Oates v Hawkins [2010] NSWSC 491
Case: [2010] NSWSC 491
Decision Date: 25 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between Oates and Hawkins, where Oates sought to bring a claim against Hawkins under section 1324 of the Corporations Act. Additionally, Oates brought forward other claims that were subject to findings in previous proceedings. Hawkins moved to strike out the claims, arguing that they were precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. The court was required to determine whether Oates was entitled to bring the claim under section 1324, and whether the other claims were precluded by prior findings.

The court examined the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a party from re-litigating a claim that has already been decided by a competent court. The court noted that the previous proceedings involved different parties and different claims, and therefore the findings did not necessarily preclude Oates from bringing the current claims. The court further considered the statutory provisions of section 1324 and found that Oates had a valid claim under the statute. The court also held that the other claims were not precluded by the previous findings as they involved different issues and different parties.

As a result, the court dismissed the application to strike out the claims. The court found that Oates was entitled to bring a claim under section 1324, and that the other claims were not precluded by prior findings. The case proceeded to trial on the merits of the claims. The final orders of the court were that the application to strike out the claims was dismissed, and the case would proceed to trial.

Orders