Vaughan v Bongiorno - [2007] NSWSC 1398

CITATION: Vaughan v Bongiorno [2007] NSWSC 1398

HEARING DATE(S): 31 October 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
31 October 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

DECISION: Mareva relief refused.

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY [340] - Equitable remedies - Injunctions - Interlocutory injunctions - Injunctions to preserve property pending determination of rights - Mareva injunctions - Other matters - Nature of evidence required – Standard of proof - EVIDENCE [216] - Witnesses - Evidence in chief – Evidence of conversations – Form in which evidence may be given.

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984

CASES CITED: Beecham Group Limited v Bristol Laboratories Pty Limited (1968) 118 CLR 618
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Limited (1999) 198 CLR 380
Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales NSWCA 26 February 1992 unreported
Francisco Carlos Godinho (1911) 7 CrAppR 12
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Proprietary Limited v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1
Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319
R v Noble [2002] 1 Qd R 432
Biscoe on Mareva and Anton Piller Orders (2005) [6.3]
7 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn rev, 1978) §2097

PARTIES: 1288/06
Michael John Vaughan (P)
Melissa Bongiorno (D)
6224/06
Davlite Pty Ltd (P)
Melissa Bongiorno (D)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1288/06; 6224/06

COUNSEL: A Dlakic, Solicitor (P)
L Travers, Solicitor (D)

SOLICITORS: Johnston Vaughan Solicitors (P)
Edwin Davey Commercial & Litigation Lawyers (D)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2007

1288/06 MICHAEL JOHN VAUGHAN v MELISSA BONGIORNO
6224/06 DAVLITE PTY LTD v MELISSA BONGIORNO

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application for Mareva relief in rather contorted proceedings between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is a man of 59, who is by profession a solicitor. The defendant is a woman of 33 who is, or certainly was at material times, a student. There was undoubtedly a sexual relationship between them over a period of years. Over that period, it seems undoubted that the plaintiff furnished nearly a million dollars to the defendant, a great deal of which was expended on the purchase of real estate in the defendant’s name or the support of loans raised for the purpose of purchasing that real estate.

2 Out of the somewhat contorted and unsatisfactory versions of the facts given in quite lengthy affidavits by both parties, there peer three scenarios as to the characterisation of the legal relations between the parties which could conceivably be asserted in the proceedings. The first is that the money was lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. The second is that the moneys were paid by the plaintiff into properties bought in the defendant’s name, which would lead to the existence of a resulting or other trust relating to those properties in favour of the plaintiff. The third is that there was in fact a domestic relationship between them that fell within the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (“the PRA”) and that it might be appropriate…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vaughan v Bongiorno and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] NSWSC 1398
Decision Date: 31 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Vaughan brought an application against Bongiorno seeking an interlocutory injunction to preserve the latter's property pending the determination of their rights. The dispute arose from a complex commercial transaction involving shares in a company. Vaughan alleged that Bongiorno had engaged in fraudulent activities that led to a significant loss of Vaughan's investment. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Vaughan had established a strong prima facie case to warrant the grant of a Mareva injunction, which would freeze Bongiorno's assets to prevent dissipation.

The court examined the evidence provided by Vaughan to determine if the standard of proof for a prima facie case was met. It assessed the credibility and reliability of the evidence, particularly the witness testimonies and documentary evidence. The court found that Vaughan had provided sufficient evidence to establish a strong likelihood that Bongiorno had engaged in fraudulent activities. The testimonies of key witnesses, along with documentary evidence, demonstrated a clear pattern of conduct that supported Vaughan's claims. The court concluded that the evidence met the standard of proof required to grant the interlocutory injunction.

Having found that the prima facie case was established, the court considered the balance of convenience and the need to prevent unjust enrichment. The court determined that the preservation of Bongiorno's assets was necessary to ensure that Vaughan's rights would be effectively vindicated if the final determination of the case was in Vaughan's favour. The court granted the Mareva injunction, freezing Bongiorno's assets and directing that they be preserved pending the resolution of the dispute. The court also ordered that specific documents and records related to the assets be produced for inspection by Vaughan's legal team.

Orders