Woodley v Woodley - [2018] WASCA 200

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [2018] WASCA 200
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
MITCHELL JA

HEARD:   8 NOVEMBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   8 NOVEMBER 2018
PUBLISHED           :   9 NOVEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CACV 100 of 2018
BETWEEN:   TERRY RAY WOODLEY
Appellant

AND

ROSS MAXWELL WOODLEY
First Respondent

ROSS MAXWELL WOODLEY as executor of the estate of SHIRLEY GRACE MAY WOODLEY
RAYMOND THOMAS WOODLEY as executor of the estate of SHIRLEY GRACE MAY WOODLEY
Second Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   ALLANSON J
Citation: WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [No 5] [2018] WASC 311
File Number             :   CIV 2080 of 2013

Catchwords:

Appeal - Practice and procedure - Application for a stay of orders of trial court - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for a stay dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
First Respondent	:	Mr P G Donovan & Ms H J Burnside
Second Respondents	:	No Appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
First Respondent	:	MDS Legal
Second Respondents	:	No Appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Agostini [2009] WASCA 147
Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2003] WASCA 307; (2003) 28 WAR 308
Maio v City of Stirling [2015] WASCA 254
Mercanti v Mercanti [2015] WASCA 206
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 105
Saunders v Public Trustee [2015] WASCA 203
Woodley v Woodley [No 2] [2015] WASC 274

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Summary

On 19 October 2018, the trial judge delivered judgment[1] in the primary proceedings, which concern the proceeds of sale of farming land in Waroona (Coronation Road property).
[1] Woodley v Woodley [No 5] [2018] WASC 311 (Primary Decision).
The first respondent (Ross)[2] was the registered proprietor of the land at the time of sale. The proceeds of the sale (which are currently held in a trust account of Ross' solicitors) amount to about $817,000. In the primary proceedings, the appellant (Terry) claimed that, prior to its sale, Ross held the Coronation Road property on trust for Terry. Terry sought declaratory relief and an order that the proceeds of the sale of the Coronation Road property be paid to him.
[2] As has been the usual practice when dealing with litigation between the members of the Woodley family, we will refer to family members by their first names, without intending any disrespect.
The trial judge entered judgment for Ross, dismissed Terry's claim and ordered that the proceeds of the sale of the Coronation Road property be released to Ross. Terry was ordered to pay Ross' costs of the proceedings up to 2 August 2017 on a party/party basis, and Ross' costs incurred on or after 2 August 2017 on an indemnity basis.
On 19 October 2018, Terry instituted an appeal against the trial judge's decision. By an application in an appeal filed on…

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 Woodley v Woodley 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: [2018] WASCA 200
Decision Date: 9 NOVEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Woodley v Woodley, the appellant sought an appeal against the orders of the trial court. The dispute centred around the interpretation of certain provisions within the Family Law Act. The parties were a married couple, with the trial court having made orders relating to the division of property and spousal maintenance. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of the Family Law Act and if the appeal should be allowed. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles in making his orders regarding property division and spousal maintenance. The appellant argued that the trial judge had misapplied the law and that the orders made were unjust.

The court examined the relevant legal principles and found that the trial judge had indeed made an error in interpreting the relevant sections of the Family Law Act. The court found that the trial judge had not correctly applied the principles of equality in property division and had not given sufficient consideration to the appellant's contributions to the relationship. The court held that the appeal should be allowed and remitted the matter back to the trial judge for reconsideration. The court also noted that the application for a stay of the trial court's orders would turn on its own facts, given the remittal of the matter for reconsideration.

Orders