Ray v Hope - [2013] QCATA 10

CITATION:

Ray v Hope and Anor [2013] QCATA 10

PARTIES:	Darren John Howard Ray (Appellant)
v
Rhonda Hope Belinda Jane Hope (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL199-12

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes, Member

DELIVERED ON:

23 January 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT – AGREEMENT NOT INTENDED TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS – DOMESTIC, SOCIAL AND OTHER AGREEMENTS – where the Appellant made a claim for monies lent during a relationship with the Respondent – where the Tribunal found the monies and goods claimed were gifts – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether there was an intention to create legal relations.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3(b), 20, 32, 142(3)(a)(i), 132(3)(b)

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), ss 7, 77(1)

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Cohen v Cohen (1929) 42 CLR 91
Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201

In Re W (an infant) [1971] AC 682

Jones v Padavatton [1969] 2 All ER 616
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16
Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302
Russell v Russell [2012] FamCA 99

Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1976] 3 All ER 665

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant Darren John Howard Ray seeks leave to appeal an Adjudicator’s order dismissing his minor civil dispute claims against Rhonda Hope for $28 and against Belinda Jane Hope for $421.47 in debt and $254.30 by way of interest. The amount of the principal is not in dispute. The defence is that it is not moneys lent, but a series of gifts inspired, as traditional legalese has it, by natural love and affection.
It is common ground that Mr Ray and Ms Belinda Hope were in “a relationship” for four[1] or five years.[2] The association began when Ms Hope was a student aged 23[3] and Mr Ray an entertainer some 18 years older than she.[4] Ms Hope’s case is that, in Mr Ray’s view, gifts were transmuted to loans when their association ended.
We had a great time ... and he was always civil and nice to me until we actually fully broke up. It was then that he started having sour grapes and then harassing me and wanting his money back.[5]
[1]        Transcript of hearing, 10 April 2012 (“Transcript”) page 4 (Hope).
[2]        Transcript page 15 (Ray).
[3]        Transcript page 12 (Hope).
[4]        Transcript page 17 (Adjudicator).
[5]        Transcript page 12.
The claimed amount of $421.47 was allegedly lent as follows:
a) $100 to pay veterinary fees on or about 7 November 2005;
b) $171.47 for ticket to “Splendour on the Grass” concert May 2006;

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 Ray v Hope

Details

AGLC: Ray v Hope and Anor [2013] QCATA 10
Case: [2013] QCATA 10
Decision Date: 23 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ray, brought an action against the respondent, Hope, seeking repayment of monies lent during their relationship. The matter was determined by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Ray argued that the respondent should repay the monies on the basis that there was an intention to create legal relations between the parties. The Tribunal rejected Ray's claim, holding that the monies and goods claimed were gifts made without any intention to create legal relations.

The central issue before the court was whether there was an intention to create legal relations between the parties such that a binding contract was formed. This required the court to examine the nature of the relationship between the parties, and the circumstances surrounding the exchange of the monies and goods. The court needed to determine whether the exchange was intended to be legally binding or if it was simply a gratuitous promise.

The court held that the Tribunal was correct to find that there was no intention to create legal relations between the parties. The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the exchange of monies and goods was intended as a gift, and not as a binding contract. The court held that the relationship between the parties was a domestic one, and that there was no evidence of any intention to enter into a legally binding agreement. The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the monies and goods were given as gifts, and not as consideration for a contract.

No further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.