Robson v. Robson & Anor - [2009] QSC 62

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robson v Robson & Anor [2009] QSC 62

PARTIES:

GARY FRANCIS ROBSON
(Plaintiff)

v

CHARLES WILLIAM ROBSON
(First Defendant)

SANDRA LEIGH ROBSON
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 10177 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2009

JUDGE:

McMurdo J

ORDER:

Paragraphs 44 to 76 of the Further Amended Defence filed on 23 February 2009 be struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – GENERALLY – where defendants plead that plaintiff should be refused equitable relief for unclean hands – whether facts pleaded too generally – whether there is a rational connection between facts alleged and the relief sought

Robson v Robson& Anor [2007] QSC 217

Robson v Robson & Anor [2008] QSC 238

COUNSEL:

R Douglas SC, with D de Jersey, for the plaintiff

A J H Morris QC for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Hopgood Ganim for the plaintiff

Russell and Company for the defendants

In these proceedings the plaintiff sues his brother and sister-in-law to enforce declarations of trust which they executed over one-half of the shares in a company called Yalgold Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“Yalgold”). The company has been wound up and there is a substantial surplus available for distribution to its members. The case is defended upon many grounds, but that which is presently relevant is what I have described in previous judgments as the tax fraud case. In broad terms, the defendants say that over many years the plaintiff conducted a scheme to defraud the Commonwealth, by diverting Australian income to foreign companies and by “repatriating” at least some of it to Australia in the guise of purported loans so that the plaintiff could enjoy the income here. They allege that part of this money found its way to Yalgold, and that the plaintiff should be refused equitable relief because he is effectively seeking to recover the fruits of his fraud. In essence, this is the same case the subject of pleadings I struck out in August 2007[1] and again in October 2008.[2]
[1]Robson v Robson& Anor [2007] QSC 217.
[2]Robson v Robson & Anor [2008] QSC 238.

Now there is this Further Amended Defence, which was filed on 23 February 2009 (notwithstanding my direction that it be filed last November). The plaintiff argues that this pleading of the tax fraud case still suffers from the same defects and should be struck out.

It remains the defendants’ case that the plaintiff perpetrated a so-called transfer pricing scheme through a number of overseas companies controlled by him. This latest pleading adds more companies to the list. It alleges one single, overarching scheme which was conducted by the plaintiff from at least 1988 until March 2000, having what this pleading describes as the first, second or third of its manifestations. This pleading overcomes at least some of the…

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 Robson v. Robson & Anor

Details

AGLC: Robson v Robson [2009] QSC 62
Case: [2009] QSC 62
Decision Date: 26 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robson v. Robson & Anor before the Queensland Supreme Court concerns a family dispute involving the distribution of assets following a separation. The plaintiff sought various equitable remedies, including an account of profits and an order for the transfer of certain properties. The defendants, in their defence, raised the doctrine of unclean hands, alleging that the plaintiff should be denied equitable relief due to their own misconduct. The central issue before the court was whether the defendants' pleadings regarding the plaintiff's alleged misconduct were too general to be effective and whether there was a rational connection between the facts pleaded and the relief sought.

The court considered the nature of the pleadings and whether they provided sufficient detail to warrant the invocation of the unclean hands doctrine. It was established that a defendant must plead specific facts that demonstrate the plaintiff's misconduct and connect those facts to the relief being sought. The court found that the defendants' pleadings were overly general and did not provide a clear and rational connection between the alleged misconduct and the relief sought. The court held that the pleadings failed to meet the required standard and were insufficient to justify the invocation of the unclean hands doctrine.

Consequently, the court ordered that paragraphs 44 to 76 of the Further Amended Defence filed on 23 February 2009 be struck out. This decision effectively removed the defendants' claim of unclean hands from consideration in the case, allowing the court to proceed with the other substantive issues without the impediment of the defendants' pleadings. This outcome highlights the importance of specificity and rational connection in pleadings to ensure that the principles of equity are applied appropriately and fairly in family law disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Paragraphs 44 to 76 of the Further Amended Defence filed on 23 February 2009 be struck out.

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:	Robson v Robson & Anor [2009] QSC 62
PARTIES:	GARY FRANCIS ROBSON (Plaintiff) v CHARLES WILLIAM ROBSON (First Defendant) SANDRA LEIGH ROBSON (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 10177 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 March 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 March 2009
JUDGE:	McMurdo J
ORDER:	Paragraphs 44 to 76 of the Further Amended Defence filed on 23 February 2009 be struck out.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – GENERALLY – where defendants plead that plaintiff should be refused equitable relief for unclean hands – whether facts pleaded too generally – whether there is a rational connection between facts alleged and the relief sought Robson v Robson& Anor [2007] QSC 217 Robson v Robson & Anor [2008] QSC 238
COUNSEL:	R Douglas SC, with D de Jersey, for the plaintiff A J H Morris QC for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Hopgood Ganim for the plaintiff Russell and Company for the defendants