BRUCE RONALD SAMPEY as trustee for THE MUSTANG UNIT TRUST
Second Appellant
STEPHEN JOHN WAKE as trustee for THE MUSTANG UNIT TRUST
Third Appellant
BRUCE RONALD SAMPEY as trustee for THE SAMPEY SUPERANNUATION FUND
Fourth Appellant
LINDA JUNE SAMPEY as trustee for THE SAMPEY SUPERANNUATION FUND
Fifth Appellant
STEPHEN JOHN WAKE as trustee for THE WAKE SUPERANNUATION FUND
Sixth Appellant
TONYA ALLISON WAKE as trustee for THE WAKE SUPERANNUATION FUND
Seventh Appellant
AND
PHILLIP CARL DOHERTY
First Respondent
PHILIP CARL DOHERTY as trustee for THE PD TRUST
Second Respondent
GREGORY JOHN NORRIS
Third Respondent
ANGOURIE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 064 357 651) as trustee for THE ANGOURIE UNIT TRUST
Fourth Respondent
FANFARE PTY LTD (ACN 051 059 342)
Fifth Respondent
HEATHER JOANNA DOHERTY
Sixth Respondent
BRUCE RONALD SAMPEY as administrator of the estate of PATRICIA ADELE ADDISON (AKA SAMPEY)
Seventh Respondent
JENNIFER ANNE SAMPEY as administrator of the estate of PATRICIA ADELE ADDISON (AKA SAMPEY)
Eighth Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: ALLANSON J
Citation: DOHERTY -v- BRUCE RONALD SAMPEY as administrator of the estate of PATRICIA ADELE ADDISON (AKA SAMPEY) [2023] WASC 10
File Number : CIV 1337 of 2014
Catchwords:
Partnership - Whether a partnership formed in the absence of a written partnership agreement - Examination of the course of conduct of the parties
Partnership - Nature and extent of the business of the partnership and the fiduciary duties owed by the partners - Examination of the course of dealings between the parties over time - Appropriate analysis to be undertaken when partnership evolves or develops over time
Practice and procedure - Failure by appellants to address Primary Judge as to equitable defence in opening or closing submissions at trial - Whether Primary Judge ignored the defence - Obligations of a trial judge in those circumstances - Primary Judge found to have addressed the defence
Equitable defences - Plea of laches - Nature of the defence - Whether prejudice required - Whether Primary Judge misapprehended the requirements of the species of laches pleaded - Whether appellate court in a position to make appropriate findings of fact in the circumstances or whether matter should be remitted
Unconscionable conduct - Relief granted by the Primary Judge under the Australian Consumer Law in respect of the Deeds of Loan - Whether necessary finding made by the Primary Judge to support the grant of relief - Whether Primary Judge erred in law in concluding that conduct of the relevant appellants was unconscionable in all the circumstances
Legislation:
Competition and Consumer Act 2001 (Cth), Schedule 2, s 21, s 22 and s 243 Partnership Act 1895 (WA), s 7 and s 8
Result:
Ground as to…
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 Sampey v Doherty
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sampey v Doherty [2024] WASCA 105
Case
[2024] WASCA 105
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Sampey v Doherty, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered an appeal by the respondents against a decision of the Primary Judge that a partnership existed between the parties. The primary judge had found that a partnership existed between the parties, and had ordered the appellants to account for profits derived from the partnership business. The respondents argued that no partnership existed, and that the appellants were not liable to account for any profits. The legal issues before the court included whether a partnership had been formed in the absence of a written agreement, the nature and extent of the business of the partnership, and the appropriate analysis to be undertaken when a partnership evolves or develops over time.
The Full Court held that there was evidence to support the primary judge's finding that a partnership existed between the parties, and that the appellants were liable to account for profits derived from the partnership business. The court found that the primary judge had correctly identified the relevant factors to consider in determining whether a partnership existed, and had appropriately examined the course of conduct of the parties over time. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the primary judge had ignored an equitable defence, finding that the primary judge had addressed the defence in his reasons. The court also found that the primary judge had not misapprehended the requirements of the defence of laches, and that the appellate court was in a position to make appropriate findings of fact. Finally, the court found that the primary judge had made the necessary findings to support the grant of relief under the Australian Consumer Law, and that the appellants' conduct had been unconscionable in all the circumstances.