|
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] |
Decision: | 1 Appeal allowed. |
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 |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 101 |
Cases Cited: | Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304 |
Category: | Principal judgment |
Parties: | John Steiner (Appellant) |
Representation: | Counsel: |
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
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
- AGLC
- Steiner v Strang [2015] NSWCA 203
- Case
- [2015] NSWCA 203
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.