Wentworth v Rogers & Anor - [2007] HCATrans 629

[2007] HCATrans 629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S500 of 2004

B e t w e e n -
KATHERINE WENTWORTH
Applicant
and
GORDON ROGERS
First Respondent
TONI ROGERS
Second Respondent
Summons

HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM MELBOURNE BY VIDEO LINK TO SYDNEY

ON FRIDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2007, AT 10.15 AM

MS K. WENTWORTH appeared in person.

MR R.M. LOVAS: May it please the Court, I appear for the second respondent. (instructed by Dorrough Smart)

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Before we begin, I should say I have a certificate from the Deputy Registrar, Mr Grey, which reads as follows:

I have been advised by the First Respondent (Gordon Rogers) that he will not be attending Court on 26 October 2007. The First Respondent has however advised me that he will be adopting any submissions made by the Second Respondent (Toni Rogers). I enclose a copy of an email from him to this effect.

The email that is enclosed addressed to Matt Grey, Deputy Registrar, High Court of Australia, Wentworth v Rogers & Another (S500/2004), omitting the addresses and like material, reads:

I refer to the abovementioned matter and your letter of 9th October 2007.
I am unable to be present but I adopt the submissions made on behalf of Mrs Toni Rogers.
Gordon Rogers.

There is attached to that email a reply:

Dear Mr Rogers
Noted, thank‑you.
Matt Grey
15/10/07

Ms Wentworth, it is, I think, your summons of 27 September, is that right?

MS WENTWORTH: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Do you read in support of that summons, first an affidavit of Salvatore Russo filed on 27 September2007?

MS WENTWORTH: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And do you also read a further affidavit of Mr Russo filed on 24 October 2007?

MS WENTWORTH: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Is there any objection to my receiving any part of those affidavits, Mr Lovas?

MR LOVAS: No objections, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Yes, Ms Wentworth, I have also received, or there is on the file, a written submission from you being the written submission of 25 October 2007. Mr Lovas, you have, I assume, seen that document, have you?

MR LOVAS: Yes, I have, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. That is the material I have, Ms Wentworth. Yes, you proceed.

MS WENTWORTH: I should correct paragraph 13 of that written submission, your Honour. It should refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Yes, Ms Wentworth.

MS WENTWORTH: Your Honour, this application is for an adjournment of one matter of four which are listed for hearing on the same day being 16 November in which I am the applicant in each matter. Your Honour, I have now managed to retain counsel in three of the matters out of the four and I will be representing myself at this stage in the fourth…

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 Wentworth v Rogers & Anor 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] HCATrans 629
Decision Date: 26 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Wentworth v Rogers & Anor*, Hayne J of the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the ownership and control of certain shares in a company. The applicant, Wentworth, sought to establish her entitlement to these shares, which were held by the respondents, Rogers and Anor. The core of the disagreement revolved around the interpretation of agreements and the nature of the transactions that led to the shares being registered in the names of the respondents.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondents held the shares in trust for the applicant, or whether they were the beneficial owners of those shares. This required the Court to examine the evidence to determine the intention of the parties at the time the shares were transferred and to ascertain whether the respondents had undertaken obligations to hold the shares for the benefit of Wentworth. The Court also had to consider the legal effect of any documentation or oral agreements that purported to govern the arrangement.

Hayne J applied established principles of trust law, focusing on the requirement for clear evidence of an intention to create a trust. The Court analysed the conduct of the parties, the surrounding circumstances, and the terms of any relevant agreements to determine if the respondents had assumed a fiduciary duty in relation to the shares. The reasoning involved a careful consideration of whether the respondents had undertaken to hold the legal title to the shares for the benefit of the applicant, thereby establishing an express or resulting trust. The Court ultimately found that the evidence did not support the existence of a trust in favour of the applicant.

Orders