Oliveri v Jones - [1999] NSWSC 796

CITATION: OLIVERI v JONES & ORS [1999] NSWSC 796

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): 3588/94

HEARING DATE(S): 2 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 August 1999

PARTIES :

Giovanni Oliveri V Michael G. Jones & Ors

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson J at 1

COUNSEL : S. McMillan for Cross-defendant Emanueli Oliveri
D. Durston and I. Hansen for Cross-claimant

SOLICITORS: R. Di Donato for Cross-defendant Giovanni Oliveri
McCabes Brown for Cross-Claimant

CATCHWORDS: ACCOUNTS - appeal from Master on items in accounts where cross-defendant occupied flat building owned by bankrupt estate and collected rents - decision on facts - no important question of principle.

CASES CITED: Minister of State for the Interior v RT Company Pty Ltd & Ors (1962) 107 CLR
Baldry v Jackson [1976] 2 NSWLR 415

DECISION: See paragraph 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRYSON J.

THURSDAY 5 AUGUST 1999

3588/94 GIOVANNI OLIVERI v MICHAEL G. JONES & ORS
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The first defendant and cross-claimant, Michael Jones, who is trustee of the bankrupt estate of Dominic Laurence Oliveri, has appealed from the certificate of Master Macready of 21 May 1999. On 18 December 1996 I made orders declaring the interests of parties in three properties, and orders for taking accounts of dealings by the cross-defendants with the Petersham property and for an inquiry as to the amount of damage suffered by Mr Jones by reason of the conduct of the cross-defendants in dealing with the Petersham property, subsequent to the sequestration order. After hearing the accounts and inquiry the learned Master certified that two of the cross-defendants Giovanni Oliveri and Emanueli Oliveri were liable to pay Mr Jones $368.52 and interest of $104.55 a total of $473.01 in respect of dealings with the property, and that no sum was due in respect of damages. The Master gave reasons on 5 March 1999 and 7 May 1999. 2 The first ground of appeal contended that it was erroneous to hold that the appellant was not entitled to damages for occupation of Flat 1 at 57 Station Street from the Sequestration Order on 23 December 1993 until Mr Jones recovered possession on 3 February 1997. The claim for damages before the Master was a claim for mesne profits. When Mr Jones’ entitlement to the property arose Emanueli Oliveri was in occupation of Unit 1 as his residence and he had the practical management of all four units in the building at Petersham; he did not have any leasehold interest, and he was in occupation with the permission or at least at the sufferance of Dominic Oliveri. The registered proprietors were Dominic Oliveri and Joseph Oliveri, but Joseph Oliveri was not a beneficial owner. The position taken by Giovanni Oliveri and the explanation offered by Emanueli Oliveri was to the effect that Emanueli Oliveri acted at the direction of Giovanni Oliveri who, as my earlier decision established, had no beneficial interest in the property. At the time of the Sequestration Order Emanueli’s occupation was…

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 Oliveri v Jones

Details

AGLC: Oliveri v Jones [1999] NSWSC 796
Case: [1999] NSWSC 796
Decision Date: 5 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Oliveri v Jones, the appellant sought to review a decision made by the Master concerning the bankrupt's accounts, specifically in relation to the items listed in the accounts where the cross-defendant had occupied a flat building owned by the bankrupt's estate and had collected rents. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions governing the bankruptcy process and the rights of parties involved. The court was tasked with determining whether the Master's decision on the facts of the case involved any important question of principle that warranted review.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the Master's findings on the facts of the case were accurate and whether there was an important question of principle that needed to be resolved. The court examined the evidence presented and the application of the relevant statutory provisions to the facts of the case. It was noted that the Master's decision was based on the facts and did not involve any significant legal principles that required further clarification or interpretation.

After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the Master's decision was based on the facts and did not involve any important question of principle. The court upheld the Master's decision and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the Master's findings on the facts of the case were accurate and that there was no need for further review or clarification of the legal principles involved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no orders for costs.

Orders