Paroz v Paroz

[2010] QSC 41

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Paroz v Paroz & Ors  [2010] QSC 41

PARTIES:

LESLIE PAROZ
(plaintiff)
v
IAN PAROZ
(first defendant)
JENNIFER PAROZ
(second defendant)
LEWIS PAROZ
(third defendant)
KAREN PAROZ
(fourth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 9656 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1- 4, 7 December 2009

JUDGE:

Peter Lyons J

ORDER:

1.   The claims in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaintiff’s claim are dismissed.

2.   The claims in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the prayer for relief in the plaintiff’s substituted statement of claim of 23 October 2009 are dismissed.  

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – where the plaintiff worked for many years in a family farming enterprise for low remuneration - whether plaintiff was at special disadvantage – whether the defendants were aware of any special disadvantage of the plaintiff – whether the defendants unfairly benefited from the plaintiff’s labour over a long period of time –– whether the plaintiff was entitled to further remuneration for his labour

EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – ACCOUNTS AND ENQUIRIES – where the plaintiff seeks the imposition of a constructive trust or some form of equitable compensation – where the plaintiff seeks an account of profits – whether a constructive trust is available as a remedy - whether equitable compensation is available as remedy – wether an account of profits is available as a remedy

Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145, considered
Attorney-General of New South Wales v World Best Holdings Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 557; [2005] NSWCA 261, considered
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51, considered
Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457; [1998] HCA 66, considered
Brusewitz v Brown [1923] NZLR 1106, considered
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio(1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14, applied
Lee v Mavaddat [2005] WASC 68, not followed
Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621; [1992] HCA 61, applied
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; [1985] HCA 78, not followed

COUNSEL:

N Ferrett for the Plaintiff
A Collins for the Defendants

SOLICITORS:

HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Ernst & Young Law for the Defendants

1. From at least about 1950, Mr Leslie Clement Paroz (Mr Paroz Senior) and his wife Olive Jessie Paroz (Olive), carried on a mixed farming enterprise on small farms on creek flats and gently sloping country to the east of the township of Laidley.  Over time their three sons, Ian, Leslie and Lewis, became more involved with the enterprise, eventually taking it over and expanding it.  Leslie alone continued to work fulltime on the farms throughout his working life.  He now claims a number of remedies against his brothers and their wives.

The claims

1. The farms have been owned by a partnership constituted by the three brothers (the Land Partnership, referred…