Sweeney v He

Case [2023] NSWCA 68

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sweeney v He [2023] NSWCA 68
Hearing dates: 16 February 2023
Date of orders: 18 April 2023
Decision date: 18 April 2023
Before: Ward P at [1]; Brereton JA at [168]; Mitchelmore JA at [186]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Bias rule — Actual or apprehended — Apprehended

APPEALS — Procedural fairness — Failure to give reasons — Adequacy of reasons

COURTS AND JUDGES — Courts — Duty to give reasons — Adequacy

EQUITY – Trust and trustees – Constructive trusts – Common intention

Legislation Cited:

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A

Cases Cited:

Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for New South Wales (2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165

Aloi Holdings Pty Ltd v John Nominees Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 270

Baira v RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2012] NSWCA 387; (2012) 297 ALR 416

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1985) 2 NSWLR 406

Broken Hill Cobalt Project Pty Ltd v Lord [2022] NSWCA 271

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67

Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242; [1984] HCA 81

CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena [2006] HCA 1; (2006) 80 ALJR 458

Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2021] NSWCA 71

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472; [1993] HCA 78

DW v The Queen [2004] ACTCA 22; (2004) 150 A Crim R 139

E H Cochrane Ltd v Ministry of Transport [1987] 1 NZLR 146

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63

Ellis v R [2015] NSWCCA 262

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22

Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263

Hofer v The Queen [2021] HCA 36; (2021) 95 ALJR 937

Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55

Knaggs v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2007) 170 A Crim R 366; [2007] NSWCA 83

Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28

Lemongrove Services Pty Ltd v Rilroll Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 174

McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [2013] WASCA 135

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; [2011] HCA 48

Michel v The Queen [2009] UKPC 41; [2010] 1 WLR 879

Mikus v Chief of Army [2020] ADFDAT 1

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507; [2001] HCA 17

Mkari v Meza [2005] NSWCA 136

Najjar v Haines (1991) 25 NSWLR 224

Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] NSWLR 376

Queensland v Masson [2020] HCA 28; (2020) 94 ALJR 785

R v Barrowman (2007) 96 SASR 294; [2007] SASC 28

R v JAE [2021] QCA 287

R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; [2000] SASC 382

R v Power [2003] SASC 77; (2003) 141 A Crim R 203

R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; [2014] SASCFC 3

Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen…

Continue reading Sweeney v He

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sweeney v He [2023] NSWCA 68
Case
[2023] NSWCA 68
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sweeney (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the appellant's claim for a constructive trust over property held by He (the respondent), arising from an alleged common intention that the appellant would have a beneficial interest in the property.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in finding that there was no common intention constructive trust, and whether the primary judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for their decision, thereby breaching the duty to give reasons and potentially the rules of procedural fairness. A further issue was whether the primary judge had demonstrated actual or apprehended bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the primary judge's reasons, while perhaps brief, were sufficient to disclose the process of reasoning and the essential findings of fact and law upon which the decision was based. The Court found no error in the primary judge's assessment of the evidence regarding the alleged common intention, nor any basis for a finding of actual or apprehended bias. The principles applied included those relating to the establishment of common intention constructive trusts and the requirements for adequate reasons in judicial decision-making.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.