Plaintiff's claim successful in part Counterclaim shall be dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:
DAVID ROBERT PRICE ALAN JOHN POWERS SHEILA POWERS ROBERT WILLIAM BAZELEY IMAGINATION ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 008 963 648)
Catchwords:
Fiduciary duties Breach The fiduciary principle Establishing the existence of a fiduciary relationship Not enough to establish that a particular relationship can be described as fiduciary Ordinarily fiduciary obligation confined to defined area of conduct Incorrect to impose upon parties fiduciary obligations wider than those imposed on themselves Alleged breach of fiduciary duty is conduct outside the defined area of conduct Breach of fiduciary duty not established Remedies Rectification of register Power to rectify register Court has jurisdiction to rectify register of unit holders in a trust whenever the plaintiff has an equity to support the remedy
[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 Price v Powers
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Price v Powers [2005] WASC 154
Case
[2005] WASC 154
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Price v Powers was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, David Robert Price, brought a claim against the first and second defendants, Alan John Powers and Sheila Powers, and the third defendant, Robert William Bazeley, for breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff also claimed against the third defendant for aiding and abetting the first and second defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty. The court found that the first and second defendants did not owe the plaintiff any fiduciary duties and therefore were not in breach of any such duties. Consequently, the third defendant was not found to have aided and abetted any breach of fiduciary duty. The court found that the plaintiff's claim for rectification of the register of unit holders in the trust was unsuccessful, as the plaintiff did not have any equity to support the remedy. The plaintiff's claims for cancellation of units, an account, and a distribution of profits were also unsuccessful for the same reason. The counterclaim by the defendants was dismissed as it was not pressed at trial. The court ordered the fourth defendant to cancel the plaintiff's special units in the trust and issue 10 ordinary units to the plaintiff, and to correct the Trust register of unit holders accordingly.