Robins and Ors v Potts and Anor - [2013] QDC 196

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robins & Ors v Potts & Anor [2013] QDC 196

PARTIES:

ERNEST WILLIAM ROBINS & MAUREEN DAWN ROBINS (as trustees for the Robins Superannuation Fund)

(First Plaintiffs)

and

ERIKA PETELSKI

(Second Plaintiff)

and

JOHN VACCANEO & JENNIFER VACCANEO

(Third Plaintiffs)

and

RONALD WALTER HERBERT & BRONWYN EUNICE HERBERT (as trustees for the Herbert Family Super Fund)

(Fourth Plaintiffs)

and

KO TAI HSI & TENG YI-YU HSI

(Fifth Plaintiffs)

v

GREGORY POTTS

(First Defendant)

and

NICLYN PTY LTD ACN 074 123 854 (in its own right and as trustee of the Potts Family Trust)

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D3371/07

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12.03.2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18, 19 & 20 April 2012

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for Plaintiffs against both defendants in the sum of $213,492.00

CATCHWORDS:

Fiduciary Duty – Breach – Damages

CASES REFERRED TO

Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation & Ors (1984) 156 CLR 41
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71
Boardman & Anor v Phipps [1967] AC 46

COUNSEL:

L Stevens for Plaintiffs

P Lynch (Solicitor) for Defendants

SOLICITORS:

Tobin King Lateef for Plaintiffs

Lynch Morgan Lawyers for Defendants

The five plaintiffs have bought a claim against Gregory Potts, the first defendant and Niclyn Pty Ltd, the second defendant. He is the controlling mind of that company. The second defendant is said to be sued “in its own right and as trustee of the Potts Family Trust”. Although the further amended Statement of Claim seeks a number of remedies, at the trial the real claim of the plaintiff was reduced to one of damages for breach of fiduciary duty.

The dispute

The claim arises out of a transaction entered into in August 1998 when a company, Law Partner Mortgages Pty Ltd (“LPM”) advanced $330,000 to a Mr and Mrs MacSween. The money was used by the MacSweens to purchase the management rights of the Biloela Motor Inn and three strata titled units in the motel, being Lots 1, 2 and 9. The structure of ownership of the motel was unusual in that it was arranged in a Group Title so that individual owners acquired individual lots, being units in the motel. Lots 1, 2 and 9 were the management unit, the laundry and the dining room of the motel. Thus, whilst they were important to the operation of the motel, they did not generate income in the way that residential units at the motel did.

The loan to the MacSweens by LPM was secured by a registered mortgage over Lots 1, 2 and 9. It is alleged in the further amended Statement of Claim that LPM was a solicitor nominee company holding its interest on behalf of the five plaintiffs (see paragraph 3 of the further amended Statement of Claim).

Subsequently, on the 4^th of November 1998, the second defendant became registered as second mortgagee of Lots 1, 2 and 9 (see paragraph 5 of the further…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Robins and Ors v Potts and Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QDC 196
Decision Date: 12 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Robins and Ors v Potts and Anor involved multiple plaintiffs suing two defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and the consequential damages. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had breached their fiduciary obligations, resulting in significant financial losses.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendants had indeed breached their fiduciary duties, and if so, what the appropriate measure of damages should be. The court had to consider the nature of the fiduciary relationship between the parties, the specific duties owed, and the extent to which those duties were breached. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate measure of damages, including whether the losses were a direct result of the alleged breaches.

In delivering judgment, the court found that the defendants had indeed breached their fiduciary duties. The breaches were significant and directly resulted in the plaintiffs' financial losses. The court held that the appropriate measure of damages was $213,492.00, which was awarded to the plaintiffs against both defendants. The judgment detailed the specific breaches and the causal link between those breaches and the damages claimed.

The court made orders for judgment to be entered in favour of the plaintiffs against both defendants for the sum of $213,492.00. The defendants were held liable for the full amount of the damages as determined by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for Plaintiffs against both defendants in the sum of $213,492.00

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.

CITATION:	Robins & Ors v Potts & Anor [2013] QDC 196
PARTIES:	ERNEST WILLIAM ROBINS & MAUREEN DAWN ROBINS (as trustees for the Robins Superannuation Fund) (First Plaintiffs) and ERIKA PETELSKI (Second Plaintiff) and JOHN VACCANEO & JENNIFER VACCANEO (Third Plaintiffs) and RONALD WALTER HERBERT & BRONWYN EUNICE HERBERT (as trustees for the Herbert Family Super Fund) (Fourth Plaintiffs) and KO TAI HSI & TENG YI-YU HSI (Fifth Plaintiffs) v GREGORY POTTS (First Defendant) and NICLYN PTY LTD ACN 074 123 854 (in its own right and as trustee of the Potts Family Trust) (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	D3371/07
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12.03.2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18, 19 & 20 April 2012
JUDGE:	Reid DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for Plaintiffs against both defendants in the sum of $213,492.00
CATCHWORDS:	Fiduciary Duty – Breach – Damages
CASES REFERRED TO	Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation & Ors (1984) 156 CLR 41 Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71 Boardman & Anor v Phipps [1967] AC 46
COUNSEL:	L Stevens for Plaintiffs P Lynch (Solicitor) for Defendants
SOLICITORS:	Tobin King Lateef for Plaintiffs Lynch Morgan Lawyers for Defendants