Russo & Anor v Aiello - [2002] HCATrans 517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S292 of 2002

B e t w e e n -
LIDO RUSSO and ZUCCHINI PTY LTD
Appellants
and
JOHN DOMINIC AIELLO
Respondent

GLEESON CJ
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2002, AT 10.23 AM

MR G.B. HALL, QC: May it please the Court, I with my learned friend, MR A.R. LAKEMAN, appear for the appellant. (instructed by Turner Whelan)

MR D.J. RUSSELL, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR G.F. BUTLER, for the respondent. (instructed by Mr Bhim Ramrakha)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Hall.

MR HALL: Your Honours, this is an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal. It relates to section 43A(2) of the Motor Accidents Act. I take it the Court has our written submissions.

GLEESON CJ: Is Reprint No 7 of the Motor Accidents Act the one for us to be looking at?

MR HALL: On my instructions, yes, your Honour. Your Honours, I have taken the liberty of obtaining the second reading speech in relation to the legislation that brought that amendment into force. Could I hand up copies of the second reading speech. I wish to take you to one passage which I have marked with a sticker.

GLEESON CJ: Thank you.

MR HALL: If your Honours go to page 4 of the second reading speech ‑ I have to say at the outset, your Honours, that it lacks, as so many second reading speeches do, any real grappling with the issues with which we are to be concerned. If your Honours go to the second paragraph on page 4, your Honours will see towards the middle of it, it says:

At present, section 43A of the Act provides that a claim may be made later than six months after the accident so long as a full and satisfactory explanation is provided. The section does not differentiate between a slightly late claim and one that is very late, yet the extent of lateness can be critical in terms of the rehabilitation of the claimant and investigation of the claim. Further, the section does not specify the consequences of failure to provide a full and satisfactory explanation.
It is proposed to provide that the consequences of failure to make a claim within time will be as follows: claims made more than six months after but within 12 months of the accident will be accepted if accompanied by a full and satisfactory explanation . . . of the reasons for the delay; and the total damages claimed are likely to equal or exceed 10 per cent of the maximum amount prescribed under clause 79A –

which your Honours might recall relates to the amount of non‑economic loss ‑

A court will be obliged to dismiss proceedings if not satisfied that…

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 Russo & Anor v Aiello 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: [2002] HCATrans 517
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning a dispute between the Russo family and Mr. Aiello. The core of the disagreement involved the ownership and entitlement to proceeds from the sale of a property located at 140-142 Princes Highway, Dandenong, Victoria. The Russo family claimed a beneficial interest in the property, alleging that Mr. Aiello held the legal title on trust for them.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the Russo family had established a resulting trust over the property, and consequently, whether the Russo family was entitled to a share of the proceeds from its sale. The court also had to consider the nature of the evidence required to establish such a trust, particularly in circumstances where the parties were related and the transaction involved complex financial arrangements.

The High Court ultimately found that the trial judge had made an error in concluding that a resulting trust had been established. Their Honours reasoned that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the funds used to purchase the property were provided by the Russo family with the intention of acquiring a beneficial interest. Instead, the court determined that the funds were advanced by Mr. Aiello, and the circumstances did not support an inference that he intended to hold the property otherwise than for his own benefit. The legal principle applied was that for a resulting trust to arise, there must be a clear intention by the provider of the purchase money to retain a beneficial interest in the property.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court ordered that the Russo family's claim be dismissed.

Orders