CITATION: SLATER -v- STRAWBERRY JOHN PTY LTD [2002] WASC 204
CORAM: HASLUCK J
HEARD: 6-9 & 24 MAY 2002
DELIVERED : 27 AUGUST 2002
FILE NO/S: CIV 1922 of 1996
BETWEEN: WILLIAM DIARMID SLATER
Plaintiff
AND
STRAWBERRY JOHN PTY LTD Defendant
FILE NO/S :CIV 2298 of 1995
BETWEEN :STRAWBERRY JOHN PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
WILLIAM DIARMID SLATER First Defendant
REGISTRAR OF TITLES Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Constructive trust - Property acquired at auction pursuant to informal bidding arrangement - Benefit of auction contract assigned to defendant company - Role of agent in effecting the assignment - Fraud alleged - Whether defendant company took with knowledge of agent's conduct - Role of company directors - Plaintiff's claim to enforce constructive trust - Defendant company bound by constructive trust
[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 Slater v Strawberry John Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Slater v Strawberry John Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 204
Case
[2002] WASC 204
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, William Slater, sought a declaration that the defendant, Strawberry John Pty Ltd, held a piece of land in West Swan on constructive trust in his favour. The subject land was the former residence of Slater and his family. It had been offered for sale at a public auction when default was made under a bank loan secured by a mortgage over the land. Slater claimed that prior to the auction a verbal arrangement was made whereby a third party would bid for and acquire the land on his behalf. He also said that as a consequence of fraudulent conduct after the auction the land was vested in the defendant company in circumstances which would make it inequitable for the company to retain the same. The court found that Slater and the defendant's agent, McColl, had entered into an oral agreement in which McColl agreed to bid for the property at auction on Slater's behalf. McColl had subsequently acted in a dishonest and unconscionable manner by vesting the benefit of the contract in the defendant company. The court held that the defendant held the land on constructive trust for Slater.