Woodley v Woodley

Link copied
Case Copied 67 min read

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION:   WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [2018] WASC 333

CORAM:   TOTTLE J

HEARD:   6 - 9 NOVEMBER 2017

23 & 25 JANUARY 2018

13 APRIL 2018 & 4 OCTOBER 2018

DELIVERED          :   2 NOVEMBER 2018

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1406 of 2016

CIV 2850 of 2017

BETWEEN:   WAYNE CHARLES WOODLEY

Plaintiff

AND

TERRY RAY WOODLEY

Defendant

AND

TERRY RAY WOODLEY

Plaintiff by counterclaim

AND

WAYNE CHARLES WOODLEY

First Defendant by counterclaim

ROSS MAXWELL WOODLEY & RAYMOND THOMAS WOODLEY as executors of the estate of SHIRLEY GRACE MAY WOODLEY

Second Defendants by counterclaim


Catchwords:

Trespass - Doctrine of trespass by relation - Defences - Whether defendant acting as executor of estate

Damages - Mesne profits - Where defendant made improvements to property - Calculation of lost rental value

Standing - Beneficiary making claim on behalf of estate - Whether special or exceptional circumstances present

Equity - Resulting trusts - Presumption of advancement - No resulting trust

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application granted
Counterclaim dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Original Action

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr S J Davis
Defendant : In Person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : MGD Law
Defendant : In Person

Counterclaim

Counsel:

Plaintiff by counterclaim : In person
First Defendant by counterclaim : Mr S J Davis
Second Defendants by counterclaim : Mr C R Bailey

Solicitors:

Plaintiff by counterclaim : In person
First Defendant by counterclaim : MGD Law
Second Defendants by counterclaim : Williams & Hughes

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

Abrugiato v Hansen [2012] WASC 362

Alexander v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2004] HCA 7; (2004) 216 CLR 109

Anderson v McPherson [No 2] [2012] WASC 19

Barker v The Queen [1983] HCA 18; (1983) 153 CLR 338

Basely v Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37

Broadway Pty Ltd v Lewis [2012] WASC 373

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

Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1993] HCA 31; (1993) 178 CLR 44

Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley [1956] HCA 28; (1956) 95 CLR 353

Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427

Esperance Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Granite Hill Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 279

Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 784

Field v Firmenich & Co [1971] 1 All ER 1104; [1971] 1 WLR 555

Glynn v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1977] 2 NSWLR 673

Halliday v Nevill [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1

Hampton v BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] WASC 285

Hancock Family Memorial Foundation Ltd v Porteous [1999] WASC 55; (1999) 151 FLR 191

Hardie Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Ahern [2010] WASC 403

Hayim v Citibank NA [1987] AC 730

Lamb v Cotogno [1987] HCA 47; (1987) 164 CLR 1

Lollis v Loulatzis [2007] VSC 547

Lord Cawdor v Lewis (1835) 160 ER 174

Martin v Martin [1959] HCA 62; (1959) 110 CLR 297

Napier v Public Trustee (Western Australia) (1980) 32 ALR 153

CaseChat AU logo

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] WASC 333
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woodley v Woodley involved a dispute over the ownership of units 14A and 14B on Fitzpatrick Street and the alleged trespass by the defendant, Terry. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, Wayne, sought to establish his title to the units and claimed that Terry had trespassed by remaining in possession of the units and making improvements without Wayne's consent. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was acting as the executor of the estate, whether there was a resulting trust, and the calculation of damages for the lost rental value of the units.

The court considered the defence of acting as an executor, which Terry claimed would absolve him of liability for trespass. The court found that even if Terry had acted as an executor, this would not be a defence unless the properties were part of the estate. The court held that the properties were not part of the estate, as Wayne had established his title to them. The court also rejected the argument that there was a resulting trust, as there was no presumption of advancement and no evidence to suggest that the properties were intended to be held on trust for the estate. Regarding damages, the court found that the defendant had made improvements to the units, which increased their value, and awarded the plaintiff the lost rental value of the units.

The court's reasoning and outcome were based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to the case. The court found that Wayne had established his title to the units and that Terry had trespassed by remaining in possession and making improvements without Wayne's consent. The court awarded damages for the lost rental value of the units, taking into account the improvements made by Terry. The court also found that there was no resulting trust and that Terry's claim of acting as an executor was not a defence to the trespass claim. The final orders of the court are not explicitly stated in the text.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Amongst other circumstances, a trespass to land occurs when a person intentionally or negligently enters into or remains on land which is in the possession of another.[46] Unless a person who enters the property of another can justify that entry by showing that he or she either entered with the consent of the occupier or otherwise had lawful authority to enter the premises, that person commits an act of trespass.[47] Every unauthorised entry upon private property is a trespass.[48][46] Hardie Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Ahern [2010] WASC 403 [222] (Pritchard J).[47] Plenty v Dillon [1991] HCA 5; (1991) 171 CLR 635, 647 (Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Barker v The Queen [1983] HCA 18; (1983) 153 CLR 338, 356 (Brennan and Deane JJ).[48] See Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Halliday v Nevill [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1, 10 (Brennan J). In Rodrigues v Ufton, Hodges J stated 'an action of trespass is an action for the disturbance of possession, and … the persons who can maintain it are those whose possession are disturbed'.[49] In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the owner of land with the paper title is deemed to be in possession of the land.[50] [49] Rodrigues v Ufton (1894) 20 VLR 539, 543 - 544.[50] Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P & CR 452, 471 - 472 (Slade J). A person may trespass on land intentionally or negligently, but a trespasser who honestly (but mistakenly) believes he is entitled to possession is nonetheless guilty of unlawful entry.[51] Terry did not dispute that following Shirley's death he retained possession of units 14A and 14B, undertook repair work and collected rent from the tenants to whom he had let the units. Terry's primary response to the trespass claim was that the Fitzpatrick Street properties were owned by the Estate and he was acting to preserve and maintain the assets of the Estate as one of the named joint executors, alternatively as an executor de son tort. During closing submissions Terry correctly accepted that even in the event that he was found to be acting as an executor this would only be relevant if the properties formed part of the Estate.[52] Given my conclusion in relation to the ownership of the properties, Terry's argument that he took possession as an executor affords him no defence. Further, as Wayne submitted, Terry's claim that in taking possession of the units he was acting as an executor of the Estate, is undermined by the fact that Terry has not accounted to the Estate for the rental income he received.[53] In cross-examination Terry agreed that the rent derived from the units was paid into his general account,[54] and that he did not account to the Estate for the rent collected by him.[55] He said that this was because he had counterclaims against the Estate for amounts he spent on the units but I do not find that explanation persuasive. Terry's readiness to criticise Ross and Ray for their alleged shortcomings as executors demonstrates a keen awareness on his part of the responsibilities of executors and if Terry's concern in taking possession of the units was to preserve the interests of the Estate he would have accounted to the Estate for the rental income.[52] ts 701.[53] ts 308 - 309.[54] ts 594.[55] ts 611 - 612.