Robson v Robson

Case [2011] QSC 234

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robson v Robson [2011] QSC 234

PARTIES:

GARY FRANCIS ROBSON
(Plaintiff)

v

CHARLES WILLIAM ROBSON
(First Defendant)

SANDRA LEIGH ROBSON
(Second Defendant)

and

HANNOVER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(Plaintiff)

v

CHARLES WILLIAM ROBSON
(Defendant)

and

MINE & QUARRY EQUIPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD

ARBN 079 139 683
(Plaintiff)

v

CHARLES WILLIAM ROBSON
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 10177 of 2004; BS 7342 of 2000; BS 8937 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claims

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

12 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22-26 February, 1 March, 1-3, 6-7, 9-10 December 2010, 22-24 February and 9 May 2011

JUDGE:

McMurdo J

ORDER:

1.    In proceedings numbered BS 10177 of 2004: A declaration that the defendants hold half of their shares in Yalgold Pty Ltd (in liquidation) on trust for the plaintiff.

2.    In proceedings numbered BS 7342 and 8937 of 2000: Judgment for the defendant.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – EXPRESS TRUSTS CONSTITUED INTER VIVOS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff and first defendant were brothers and in business together from 1985 to 1999 – where the first defendant and his wife, the second defendant, were the shareholders of a company which held assets of the business – where the defendants signed declarations of trust in favour of the plaintiff – where the company is now in liquidation – whether there should be a declaration that the defendants hold half of their shares on trust for the plaintiff – whether the shares held in trust should be vested in the plaintiff

BANKING AND FINANCE – INSTRUMENTS – LOAN FACILITIES – where the defendant and his brother were in business together from 1985 to 1999 – where companies under the brother’s control made loans to the defendant between 1992 and 1994 – where the loans were assigned to the plaintiff companies which are also under the brother’s control – whether the plaintiffs can recover the monies – whether the loans and assignments were shams

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 468, s 468A

Duties Act 2001 (Qld), s 487
Stamp Act 1894 (Qld), s 4A, s 51E, s 56FA-56FO

Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), s 82

Burnitt & Anor v Pacific Paradise Resort Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 218, cited
Carantinos v Magafas [2008] NSWCA 304, cited
Caxton Street Agencies v Korkidas & Anor [2002] QSC 210, applied
Cheang Thye Phin v Lam Kin Sang [1929] AC 670, cited
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio & Anor (1983) 151 CLR 447, cited
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Moorebank Pty Ltd [1987] 1 Qd R 414, cited
Elder v Northcott [1930] 2 Ch 422, cited
Equus Financial Services Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd [1994] QCA 157, cited
Hoggett v O’Rourke [2002] 1 Qd R 490, considered
Hollis v Palmer (1936) 2 Bing NC 713, cited
Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25, applied
J W Broomhead (Vic) Pty Ltd (in liq) v J W Broomhead Pty…

Continue reading Robson v Robson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Robson v Robson [2011] QSC 234
Case
[2011] QSC 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robson v Robson involved a dispute between brothers, the plaintiff and the first defendant, who had been in business together from 1985 to 1999. The first defendant and his wife, the second defendant, were the shareholders of a company that held the assets of their business. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants signed declarations of trust in their favour, which should result in a declaration that the defendants hold half of their shares on trust for the plaintiff, and that the shares held in trust should be vested in the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants denied the allegations and argued that the declarations of trust were invalid.

The court was required to decide whether the declarations of trust were valid and enforceable, and whether the shares should be vested in the plaintiff. The court also had to determine whether the loans made by companies under the plaintiff's control to the first defendant, which were later assigned to the plaintiff's companies, were genuine transactions or whether they were shams designed to defraud the plaintiff. The court had to examine the evidence and determine the nature of the relationship between the parties and the transactions in question.

The court found that the declarations of trust were valid and enforceable, and that the defendants held half of their shares in Yalgold Pty Ltd on trust for the plaintiff. The court also found that the loans and assignments were genuine transactions and not shams. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the defendants hold half of their shares in Yalgold Pty Ltd on trust for the plaintiff, and that the shares held in trust should be vested in the plaintiff. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for recovery of the loans, finding that the defendants had not acted dishonestly or fraudulently in making and assigning the loans.

The court made a declaration that the defendants hold half of their shares in Yalgold Pty Ltd on trust for the plaintiff and that the shares held in trust should be vested in the plaintiff. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for recovery of the loans and made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In proceedings numbered BS 10177 of 2004: A declaration that the defendants hold half of their shares in Yalgold Pty Ltd (in liquidation) on trust for the plaintiff.

2. In proceedings numbered BS 7342 and 8937 of 2000: Judgment for the defendant.

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.