Steiner v Strang

Case [2015] NSWCA 203



Court of Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

Steiner v Strang

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2015] NSWCA 203

Hearing Date(s): 

24 June 2015

Date of Orders:

16 July 2015

Decision Date: 

16 July 2015

Before: 

Emmett JA at [1]
Leeming JA at [63]
Simpson JA at [64]

Decision: 

1    Appeal allowed.
 
2    Orders made on 19 September 2014 be set aside.
 
3   Remit the matters raised in the amended cross-summons dated 6 March 2014 to the Equity Division for retrial.
 
4   Respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
 
5   Costs of the first trial be determined by the judge hearing the retrial.

Catchwords: 

CONTRACT – whether a sum of money advanced to the appellant was a gift or a loan (now owed to an estate) – construction of an “acknowledgement”, signed after the advance of funds
 
EVIDENCE – rejection of evidence – whether the primary judge erred in declining to admit evidence as to the circumstances in which the acknowledgement, which had no juridical effect, was made
 
SUCCESSION – rule in Cherry v Boultbee (1839) 41 ER 171 – whether the acknowledgement limits the range of possible funds from which the “loan” might be repaid to the estate

Legislation Cited: 

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 101
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 38
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 45(2)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 Pt 3.2
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 28.2, r 51.53

Cases Cited: 

Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304
Cherry v Boultbee (1839) 41 ER 171
Lym International Pty Ltd v Marcolongo [2011] NSWCA 303
Peruvian Railway Construction Co Ltd [1915] 2 Ch 144
Re Ackerman [1891] 3 Ch 212
Re Taylor [1894] 1 Ch 671

Category: 

Principal judgment

Parties: 

John Steiner (Appellant)
Kenneth Ross Strang (First Respondent)
Jason Tang (Second Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel:
M Cashion SC with B Michael (Appellant)
L Ellison SC (Respondents)
 
Solicitors:
Gells Lawyers (Appellant)
Glass Goodwin Solicitors (Respondents)

File Number(s): 

2014/295620

Publication Restriction: 

Nil

Decision under appeal: 

 Court or Tribunal: 

Supreme Court of New South Wales

  Jurisdiction: 

Equity Division

  Date of Decision: 

12 September 2014

  Before: 

Sackar J

  File Number(s): 

2012/185566

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

JUDGMENT

  1. EMMETT JA: The question in this appeal is whether the appellant, Mr John Steiner, is indebted to the respondents, Mr Kenneth Strang and Mr Jason Tang (the Executors), in their capacity as executors of the estate of Mr Steiner’s mother, Mrs Dorothy Steiner, who died on 12 October 2011 (the Deceased). The Executors claim that Mr Steiner is indebted to the estate of the Deceased in the…

Continue reading Steiner v Strang

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Steiner v Strang [2015] NSWCA 203
Case
[2015] NSWCA 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Steiner v Strang* concerned a dispute over a sum of money advanced by the deceased to the appellant, the late Mr. Steiner. The central question was whether this advance constituted a gift or a loan that was now owed to the deceased's estate. A key piece of evidence was an "acknowledgement" signed by the appellant after the funds were advanced. The appeal was heard by Emmett, Leeming, and Simpson JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the primary judge erred in rejecting evidence concerning the circumstances under which the acknowledgement was made, particularly given that the acknowledgement itself was found to have no independent juridical effect. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the acknowledgement, despite its lack of juridical effect, operated to limit the range of assets from which the "loan" could be repaid to the estate, in accordance with the rule in *Cherry v Boultbee*.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in excluding the evidence relating to the circumstances of the acknowledgement. The judges reasoned that this evidence was relevant to understanding the intention of the parties and the true nature of the transaction, even if the acknowledgement document itself did not create new legal rights or obligations. The court also held that the acknowledgement did not, as a matter of law, limit the source of repayment for the advance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the previous orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted to the Equity Division for a retrial. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, with the costs of the first trial to be determined by the judge presiding over the retrial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Appeal allowed.

2 Orders made on 19 September 2014 be set aside.

3 Remit the matters raised in the amended cross-summons dated 6 March 2014 to the Equity Division for retrial.

4 Respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

5 Costs of the first trial be determined by the judge hearing the retrial.

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.