Hwang v Lawrie (by his litigation guardian The Public Trustee of Queensland) & Anor [2013] QCA 204

Hwang v Lawrie (by his litigation guardian The Public Trustee of Queensland) & Anor [2013] QCA 204

 

JUDGES:
Holmes and Fraser JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring at to the order made
ORDER:
The  appeal is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant appealed against a judgment requiring her to repay funds obtained through fraud and undue influence – where the respondents contended that the Court should not hear the appellant because of her prima facie contempt of orders of the Court below – where those orders included four made in an earlier ancillary proceeding between the parties and the judgment orders in the proceeding the subject of this appeal – whether there is an absolute bar on a party in contempt being heard or whether the court has a discretion to hear the contemnor – whether contempt of orders in a different but related proceeding should attract the application of the rule or discretion – whether the interests of justice militate in favour of permitting an appellant to challenge the correctness of the orders of which he or she is prima facie in contempt – where counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant wished to take steps to purge her contempt – whether the Court should exercise its discretion to hear the appellant and deal with the appeal on its merits
PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where the appellant was found to have acted unconscionably and defrauded and exercised undue influence over her husband, the first respondent, in obtaining control of large sums of money from his bank accounts and those of his company, the second respondent – where the appellant did not give evidence at the trial – where the appellant submitted that the trial judge overlooked matters raised in her “Defence”, placed too much weight on the evidence of the respondents, and failed to take “language and cultural barriers” into account – where the “Defence” document filed by the appellant in no way conformed with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 and was unsupported by any affidavit material – where no evidence of language or cultural barriers was placed before the trial judge – where the appellant sought to rely on inadmissible material to argue a contractual relationship between her and the first respondent – whether in all the circumstances the trial judge erred in entering judgment for the respondents
David Cormack – Brisbane Barrister.

Related Posts

Recent Comments

    Categories