SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Voss & Anor v Suncorp-Metway Ltd & Ors [2003] QCA 252
PARTIES:
ERIC KENNETH VOSS and
BETTY JOAN VOSS
(plaintiffs/appellants)
v
LIONEL JAMES DAVIDSON and
THOMAS MICHAEL SULLIVAN
trading as DAVIDSON & SULLIVAN (a firm)
(first defendant)
NICHOLAS WEBSTER RIPPER
(second defendant)
SUNCORP-METWAY LIMITED ACN 010 831 722
(third defendant/respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 10159 of 2002
SC No 8188 of 1997DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
24 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 May 2003
JUDGES:
Davies and Williams JJA and Wilson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
1. Appeal allowed
2. Set aside judgment below of 10 October 2002 in favour of the respondent
3. In lieu, judgment for the appellants against the respondent for $577,000 with interest at 10 per cent per annum from 23 May 1996 and costs to be assessed, such costs being on an indemnity basis after 10 December 2001
4. That the respondent pay the appellants their costs of the appeal to be assessed on an indemnity basisCATCHWORDS:
BANKING AND FINANCE - BANKS - LIABILITIES OF BANKS - CONVERSION - where appellants made out a cheque in the name of Southern Pacific Equities Unit Trust - where appellants handed cheque to accountant to deposit - where accountant fraudulently caused a trust deed to be executed in above name with himself as sole trustee and sole beneficiary - where accountant opened account with respondent in name of trust - where bank deposited cheque into above account - whether bank dealt with cheque in a manner repugnant to appellants' rights and therefore converted cheque
BANKING AND FINANCE - BANKS - DUTIES OF BANKS - DUTY TO MAKE INQUIRIES - where cheque dated one day prior to date of trust deed and one day prior to date account opened at respondent bank - where accountant named as sole trustee and sole beneficiary of trust - where accountant was sole signatory on account - where cheque was for unusually large amount - whether the above matters ought to have put the respondent on inquiry - whether by failure to inquire the respondent acted negligently
ESTOPPEL - ESTOPPEL IN PAIS - THE REPRESENTATION - IN GENERAL - where appellants wrote cheque for $600,000 in favour of Southern Pacific Equities Unit Trust - where appellants did not investigate existence of trust - where appellants gave cheque to accountant to bank - where accountant fraudulently caused a trust deed to be executed in the name of above trust with himself as sole trustee and sole beneficiary - where accountant subsequently misappropriated funds for his own use - whether appellants should be estopped from denying authority of accountant to pay cheque into above account
EQUITY - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - FRAUDULENT AND INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATION - THE REPRESENTATION - GENERALLY - where appellants made out cheque in name of Southern Pacific…
Continue reading Voss v Suncorp-Metway Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Voss v Suncorp-Metway Ltd [2003] QCA 252
- Case
- [2003] QCA 252
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the bank acted negligently by failing to make inquiries that ought to have been apparent given the circumstances. The cheque was dated one day before the trust deed was executed and one day before the account was opened. Additionally, the accountant was named as the sole trustee and beneficiary of the trust, and he was the sole signatory on the account. The cheque was also for an unusually large amount, which should have raised questions. The court also examined whether the appellants should be estopped from denying the authority of the accountant to pay the cheque into the account due to their failure to investigate the existence of the trust before handing the cheque to the accountant.
The court found that the bank had a duty to make inquiries when the cheque was deposited, given the unusual circumstances. The bank's failure to do so constituted negligence. The court also held that the appellants could not be estopped from denying the accountant's authority because they had no knowledge of the fraud and had acted in good faith. The court concluded that the bank had dealt with the cheque in a manner repugnant to the appellants' rights, thereby converting it. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment in favour of the respondent was set aside. In lieu, judgment was entered for the appellants against the respondent for $577,000 with interest and costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed
2. Set aside judgment below of 10 October 2002 in favour of the respondent
3. In lieu, judgment for the appellants against the respondent for $577,000 with interest at 10 per cent per annum from 23 May 1996 and costs to be assessed, such costs being on an indemnity basis after 10 December 2001
4. That the respondent pay the appellants their costs of the appeal to be assessed on an indemnity basis
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.