Robson v Robson

Case [2012] QCA 119

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robson & Anor v Robson [2012] QCA 119

PARTIES:

CHARLES WILLIAM ROBSON
(first appellant)
SANDRA LEIGH ROBSON
(second appellant)
v
GARY FRANCIS ROBSON
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8047 of 2011
SC No 10177 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 February 2012

JUDGES:

Muir, Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellants and respondent had entered into trust declaration requiring appellants to hold 50 per cent of shares in company on account of respondent – where appellants were the directors of the company –  where first appellant and respondent are brothers – where brothers had falling out – where appellants argued that a separation agreement existed – where appellants argued that trust declaration was superseded by separation agreement – where appellants argued that trust declarations were shams – where appellants argued that the trust declarations were revoked – whether the trust declarations were shams – whether the trust declarations were revoked – whether the trust declarations were superseded by a separation agreement

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RULES AND MAXIMS OF EQUITY – CLEAN HANDS – where the respondent had previously denied in other proceedings that he held an interest in the shares of the company – where the respondent is alleged to have done so to put the shares beyond the reach of his former spouse upon the termination of their marriage – where the subject matter of the trust was not the result of, or augmented by, the alleged misconduct – where the appellants argued that the alleged misconduct disentitled the respondent to equitable relief – whether the alleged misconduct disentitled the respondent to equitable relief

Kettles & Gas Appliances Ltd v Anthony Hordern & Sons Ltd (1934) 35 SR (NSW) 108, considered
Meyers v Casey (1913) 17 CLR 90; [1913] HCA 50, cited
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538; [1995] HCA 25, considered
Robson v Robson & Anor [2007] QSC 217, cited
Robson v Robson & Anor [2008] QSC 238, cited
Robson v Robson [2011] QSC 234, approved
Sang Lee Investment Co Ltd v Wing Kwai Investment Co Ltd & Anor [1983] HKLR 197 (PC); [1983] UKPC 11, considered
Shepherd v Felt & Textiles of Australia Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 359; [1931] HCA 21, considered

COUNSEL:

A J H Morris QC, with J Peden, for the appellants
R J Douglas SC, with D de Jersey, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Russells for the appellants
Flower and Hart Lawyers for the respondent

  1. MUIR JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs for the reasons given by Fraser JA.

  1. FRASER JA: Since the parties to this…

Continue reading Robson v Robson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Robson v Robson [2012] QCA 119
Case
[2012] QCA 119
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this case were Robson (the appellants) and Robson (the respondent). The dispute involved the interpretation and validity of trust declarations which required the appellants to hold 50% of the shares in a company on behalf of the respondent. The appellants, who were also the directors of the company, claimed that the trust declarations were shams, had been superseded by a separation agreement, or had been revoked. They argued that a separation agreement existed between the parties, which they claimed nullified the trust declarations. The appellants further argued that the trust declarations were shams and that the respondent's alleged misconduct disentitled him to equitable relief.

The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the trust declarations were indeed shams, whether they had been revoked or superseded by a separation agreement, and whether the respondent's alleged misconduct disentitled him to equitable relief. The court had to examine the nature of the trust declarations, the circumstances under which they were executed, and the conduct of the parties thereafter. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent's prior denial of holding an interest in the shares, which he allegedly did to put the shares beyond the reach of his former spouse, disentitled him from seeking equitable relief.

The court dismissed the appeal and found that the trust declarations were not shams, had not been revoked or superseded, and that the respondent's alleged misconduct did not disentitle him to equitable relief. The court held that the trust declarations were valid and enforceable, and that the appellants were required to hold the shares as trustees for the respondent. The court noted that the trust was not the result of, nor augmented by, the respondent's alleged misconduct, and that there was no basis to apply the maxim of equity "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands." The court held that the respondent was entitled to enforce the trust declarations and to seek equitable relief.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed with costs. The appellants were required to hold the shares as trustees for the respondent and to account for any profits made from the shares. The court ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.