Mr S Anderton (First Defendant)
Mr O Small (First Defendant)
[2]
Solicitors:
De Silva Hebron (Plaintiff)
Deutsch Miller (First Defendant)
File Number(s): 2021/296987
[3]
Judgment
Mr and Mrs Worthington, who are both now aged in their 90's, brought these proceedings, in Mrs Worthington's case by her tutor, her son Stuart Worthington. They sought orders against their other children, Ms Hallissy and Mrs Jenner, and their son-in-law Mr Jenner. Mr and Mrs Jenner had filed a submitting appearance, except as to costs, but the orders sought were opposed by Ms Hallissy, who also brought a cross claim against Mrs Worthington and Mr and Mrs Jenner. The cross claim was defended by Mrs Worthington, but not by Mr and Mrs Jenner.
Worthington bht Worthington v Hallissy [2022] NSWSC 753 | Case summary | Zoe
Mrs Worthington sought possession of a property at Wahroonga purchased in 2016 with a loan from Rams Financial Group Pty Ltd, the registered mortgagee, which has not been active in the proceedings. An order for rectification of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) Register was also sought. She and Mr and Mrs Jenner were the registered proprietors of the property, but Ms Hallissy lived there, claiming that she had a 100% beneficial interest in the property.
Mrs Worthington held a 2/3 share of the property as tenant in common with Mr and Mrs Jenner, who held their 1/3 share as joint tenants with each other. Mrs Jenner had also been her mother's attorney under a power of attorney which had been revoked in April 2021.
Mr and Mrs Worthington also pursued equitable compensation and damages against Mr and Mrs Jenner in respect of the Wahroonga property and another property at St Ives, where Mr Worthington had lived for a time with Mr and Mrs Jenner. He and Mrs Worthington had by then been separated, but not divorced, for many years. At that time Mrs Jenner also held a power of attorney for Mr Worthington.
Mr Worthington claimed a 50% beneficial interest in the St Ives property which Mr and Mrs Jenner had purchased in 2011 and which became the subject of a deed executed by he and Mr and Mrs Jenner in October 2013, after he had paid them $600,000 for a share of the property. The property was later sold, but none of the resulting funds were paid to Mr Worthington.
On the morning of the hearing a settlement was arrived at with Ms Hallissy. When the hearing commenced Mrs Jenner was present, but she did not seek to be heard. Because Mrs Worthington suffers from dementia the settlement had to be approved under s 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The hearing was adjourned so that the approval could be sought. After it was granted by Garling J, the hearing resumed, with agreed orders made by consent:
"1 Subject to order (2) below, an order pursuant to s.138 of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) that the Registrar-General amend the folio of the register maintained for 33/SP82287 so as to record in the First Schedule that Patricia Mary Worthington is the sole registered proprietor of the land.
2 Grant liberty to the Registrar-General to apply to the Court to be heard on order (1), such liberty to be exercised within 3 days of service of these orders on the Registrar-General.
3 The proceedings insofar as they relate to the First Defendant are otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs, to the effect that each party bears its own costs;
4 The First Defendant's Cross Claim is otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs, to the effect that each party bears its own costs; and,
5 The balance of the proceedings stood over to the Trial Judge."
Mr and Mrs Worthington then pursued the orders which they sought to have made against Mr and Mrs Jenner:
"1 Declare that the Second and Third Defendants are liable to pay equitable compensation to the First Plaintiff for any sums payable to the Fourth Defendant to discharge any mortgages on 33/SP82287.
2 Declare that the Second and Third Defendants held 50% of the proceeds of sale of xxxxx, being $1,041,122.24, on trust for the Second Plaintiff.
3 Declare that the Second and Third Defendants are in breach of the trust declared in order 2.
4 Order that the Second and Third Defendants pay $1,041,122.24 as equitable compensation to the Second Plaintiff within 14 days.
5 Liberty to apply by email to the Associate to the Trial Judge on 3 days' notice.
6 Proceedings stood over to the Trial Judge after 5 September 2022 for directions."
It was at that point that Mrs Jenner, who was then unrepresented, sought to be heard. That was opposed.
It emerged that while the hearing was adjourned so that Garling J could deal with the application for approval of the settlement, without first seeking leave, Mrs Jenner had filed a handwritten notice of appearance, purportedly for both her and Mr Jenner. She had given Mr and Mrs Worthington's representatives notice of what she had filed, but had not served the document.
Leave to withdraw their submitting appearances was opposed and Mrs Jenner's authority to file the document on behalf of Mr Jenner challenged. Mrs Jenner was then given the opportunity, overnight, to file and serve a motion seeking the required leave, together with a supporting affidavit.
Overnight the position changed. The application to withdraw Mr Jenner's submitting appearance was not pressed. On Mrs Jenner's account he is not in the jurisdiction. Mrs Jenner did not file a motion, but her affidavit indicated that what she sought to do was seek "the Court's leave to actively participate in these proceedings with a view to concluding them in such a way as to provide funds to LBW as previously discussed and negotiated with him."
Having invited Mrs Jenner to explain the course she wished to pursue and having adjourned to permit her to show Mr and Mrs Worthington's legal representatives the documents on which she wished to rely, the application to withdraw her submitting appearance was pressed, but still opposed and finally refused, because I was satisfied that justice could not permit it to be granted. The reasons for that conclusion follow.
[4]
Why Mrs Jenner's application for leave to withdraw the submitting appearance was refused
Withdrawal of a submitting appearance requires the Court's leave: rr 6.11 and 12.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) discussed in Evergreen Tours Pty Ltd v McLaren [2010] NSWSC 1362 at [17]-[19].
Such an application must be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), which specifies in s 56 the overriding purpose of the legislative scheme to be the just quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings and in s 58, the requirement that the Court must seek to act in accordance with the dictates of justice.
The matters specified in s 58(2)(b) to be taken into account include the degree to which the parties had been timely in their interlocutory activities; any lack of expedition in approaching the proceedings which has arisen from circumstances beyond their control; whether the respective parties have fulfilled their duties; the use that any party has made, or could have made, of any opportunity that has been available in the course of the proceedings; and the degree of injustice that would be suffered by the respective parties as a consequence of any order or direction.
These considerations did not favour the grant of the leave Mrs Jenner so belatedly pursued, during the course of the final hearing. The intent of the Rules and the Court's practices is to ensure that parties are given a fair opportunity to advance their cases, while ensuring that litigation is not conducted by ambush or surprise.
It was relevant that Mrs Jenner's submitting appearance was filed when she was legally represented. She said that was at a time when she understood that no action or relief was being sought against her and Mr Jenner. That was not reflected by the part of the letter received from Mr and Mrs Worthington's solicitors attached to her affidavit, or her decision not to resist the transfer of their interest in the Wahroonga property to Mrs Worthington, which the consent orders achieved.
Mrs Jenner's affidavit also established that she was aware from February 2022 that money orders were being sought against her and still she did not seek to defend Mr and Mrs Worthington's claims. Even at the final hearing she did not dispute that money orders would be made against her. She then wanted to participate, she said, so that "a mutually beneficial settlement" could be arrived at. But that was not what the hearing was concerned with.
The proceedings had been commenced in October 2021 and the cross claim filed in December. Mr and Mrs Jenner's submitting appearance, except as to costs, was filed in November 2021, while they were legally represented. The hearing was proceeding on the amended statement of claim filed in February 2022, which had responded to claims advanced by Ms Hallissy in her cross claim and pursued money orders against Mr and Mrs Jenner. An amended cross claim had been filed in March 2021, which Mr and Mrs Worthington defended.
Mr Worthington and Mr Stuart Worthington had sworn their affidavits in April 2022. They and documents on which Mr and Mrs Worthington relied, some produced by Mrs Jenner, were contained in 11 volumes of court books.
Mr and Mrs Jenner had not filed a defence to either claim or any affidavit evidence. But in the week before the hearing Mrs Jenner had appeared before Davies J to explain why she had not produced other documents in answer to a notice to produce which had been served upon her.
The possibility of Mrs Jenner being in contempt had then been raised. She then spoke about paying funds into her solicitor's account or into court and producing further documents which she had in her possession. His Honour urged her to obtain advice, on Monday 30 May ordering:
"5. By 12pm on Wednesday 1 June 2022, the Second Defendant shall:
a. produce to the Court all documents in her possession, custody and power as specified in the Notice to Produce filed 3 May 2022; and
b. file and serve an affidavit identifying all attempts to comply with the Notice to Produce and the reasons why any documents or categories of documents within her possession, custody or power are not produced.
6. Leave granted to all parties to inspect documents produced pursuant to [5(a)]."
Mrs Jenner clearly did not comply with these orders, even though her affidavit gave an account of steps she had taken to produce some documents.
The affidavit also referred to agreements Mrs Jenner claimed that she had reached in the past with Mr Worthington, mediations in which the parties had participated and her ability to transfer funds, if Mr Worthington had signed mediation agreements.
Even accepting that these matters were relevant to what arose to be determined, they were matters which Mrs Jenner could and ought to have advanced earlier, by a timely application to withdraw her submitting appearance, filing a defence and compliance with the Court's orders, including as to the filing and service of evidence and submissions and compliance with notices to produce documents.
Mrs Jenner's position was that she did not wish to pursue an adjournment, file a defence to the amended summons, or put on any affidavit evidence. Instead, she wanted to tender documents and make submissions of which she had given Mr and Mrs Worthington no prior notice. While some of the documents on which Mrs Jenner wished to rely had been produced, others had not and one was a document which appeared to include both evidence and submissions, which was unsworn.
As it emerged, even at that time Mrs Jenner had still not fully answered the notice to produce. One document was a red ledger which she had maintained. She then had it with her in court, but still had only produced photocopied pages which she considered to be relevant.
Mrs Jenner's affidavit well established that she had long known that money orders would be pursued against her by her elderly unwell parents, but she took no steps to defend their claims. On her own account she knew that she would have to pay Mr Worthington and had funds available for that purpose. Even when the matters were before Davies J in the week before the hearing Mrs Jenner did not indicate any opposition to orders being made against her or Mr Jenner. To the contrary, she then raised paying money into her solicitor's account or into court, but she took neither step.
That Mrs Jenner had made a deliberate choice to file a submitting appearance at a time when she had legal advice was apparent. She did not depart from that course until during the final hearing, after the consent orders had been made, claiming that she had only then realised that she did not have the right to be heard in opposition to the orders sought. That was not plausible.
The course which Mrs Jenner had so pursued thus made difficult the task of persuading the Court to exercise its discretion to grant the leave she had so belatedly sought: Garsec v His Majesty The Sultan of Brunei [2007] NSWSC 882 at [49] following Somportex Limited v Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corporation [1968] 3 All ER 26.
What was advanced established that justice could not permit Mrs Jenner to be relieved of the consequences of the forensic decisions which she had made, before her application to withdraw her submitting appearances only during the midst of the final hearing. I was satisfied that this application, made so that Mrs Jenner could advance a case of which she had given no prior notice, as she ought to have, could not justly be permitted. That conclusion was reinforced by her approach to the notice to produce and the orders made by Davies J.
When all of that was considered together with Mr and Mrs Worthington's difficult positions, both of them very elderly and unwell, which also had to be taken into account in determining what the dictates of justice required in all of the circumstances, I was satisfied that the leave Mrs Jenner pressed could not be granted.
[5]
Why the orders pressed must be made
Even at the time of the hearing investigations into documents recently produced by Mrs Jenner were continuing. In the result it was finally orders 2 to 6 that were pressed and which I am satisfied must be made.
At the relevant time Mrs Jenner held powers of attorney for both Mr and Mrs Worthington. The evidence established that she and Mr Jenner purchased the St Ives property in 2011 and in 2013 they entered a deed with Mr Worthington by which he acquired a 50% beneficial interest in the property.
Mr and Mrs Jenner had purchased the property for $1,065,000, with borrowings of $822,000. In 2013 Mr Worthington paid $600,000 for his interest, but Mr and Mrs Jenner did not use those funds to repay their borrowings. Mr Worthington also paid for other improvements to the property. Bank records accord with payments which the deed acknowledges. The Recitals provided:
"A. On 23 September 2011, the Jenners purchased the residential property of xxxxx ("the Property") for the sum of $1,065,000.
B. On or about September 2013 the Jenners agreed to sell a 50% interest in the property to LBW for the sum of $600,000.
C. If stamp duty was going to apply to this transaction an independent valuation for stamp duty purposes was obtained from Diamond Property Inspections who valued the property at $1,075,000.
D. In addition to the purchase price, LBW agreed to pay 50% of the costs for repairs, renovations and additions (including landscaping) which he requested to make the property suitable for his living needs.
E. At the date of this deed the full purchase price has been paid together with some of the additional costs in relation to "D" above.
F. The parties have agreed to enter into this Deed with a view to establishing their respective rights, titles and interests in the said property.
G. The Jenners acknowledge that the mortgage on the said property is their responsibility."
The deed provided that:
"1. The Jenners acknowledge that they hold the said property in trust for themselves and LBW in equal shares as tenants in common.
2. Each party covenants with the other party that upon the death of one party ("the deceased") the other party ("the survivor") may continue to occupy the said property free of any rent or occupation fee so long as the same remains the principal residence of such survivor and subject to such survivor paying and indemnifying the estate of the deceased against all outgoings in respect thereof and keeping the said residence and all other improvements thereon in good and tenantable condition and repair.
3. Covenants by either party in this Deed bind that party and that party's executors, administrators and assigns.
4. It is intended that the operation of this Deed should confer (inter alia) benefits on one party which take effect after the death of the other party and consequently this Deed has been executed by each party in testamentary form that is to say in the presence of two (2) witnesses present at the same time."
Mr and Mrs Jenner sold the property in 2016. But they made no payment to Mr Worthington for his 50% share of the sale price, $2,150,000, which they retained. I am satisfied that in the result, they held $1,041,22.84 on trust for him, after account was taken of the cost of the sale of some $67,755.52.
Equity imposed various obligations and duties on Mr and Mrs Jenner as the trustees of those funds. They included getting in the trust property and keeping it distinct from their property, as well as from other property which they held on other trusts, including property held on trust for Mrs Worthington. The deed did not purport to vary or abrogate such obligations and there is no evidence of any other agreement which could have had such a result: Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd (in liq) (2000) 202 CLR 588; [2000] HCA 25 at [34].
Mr Worthington's evidence also established the claimed breaches of trust. It was in mid-2020 that he unsuccessfully began asking Mr and Mrs Jenner for his money, as his bank balances had dwindled. This and the disagreement over the Wahroonga property led to disputation, family discussions, mediations, other unsuccessful attempts at reaching agreement, the breakdown of his relationship with Mr and Mrs Jenner and the revocation of Mrs Jenner's power of attorney.
Mr Worthington has still not been paid any of his funds; they do not appear to have been kept separate; nor do proper accounts appear to have been kept; nor has he been given a proper response to requests he has made about his funds. Mrs Jenner's claimed preparedness to pay Mr Worthington an unspecified sum if he signed mediation agreements, could not have satisfied the obligations which she and Mr Jenner owed him as trustees.
In any event, the evidence also establishes that two payments Mrs Jenner actually made by cheque to Mr Worthington after the sale in May and June 2021, one for $382,000 and the other for $497,000 were dishonoured. That also establishes the claimed breaches of trust.
In the result I am satisfied that the orders pressed must be made.
[6]
Costs
The usual costs order under r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules is that costs follow the event. In this case that is a costs order in favour of Mr and Mrs Worthington.
Mr and Mrs Jenner are entitled to be heard on costs, as is Ms Hallissy and Mr and Mrs Worthington.
[7]
Orders
For the reasons given I:
1. Declare that the Second and Third Defendants held 50% of the proceeds of sale of xxxxx, being $1,041,122.24, on trust for the Second Plaintiff.
2. Declare that the Second and Third Defendants are in breach of the trust declared in order 1.
3. Order that the Second and Third Defendants pay $1,041,122.24 as equitable compensation to the Second Plaintiff within 14 days.
4. Give liberty to apply by email to my Associate on 3 days' notice.
5. Stand the proceedings stood over to 6 September 2022 at 9.30 am for directions.
6. Direct the parties to confer and file proposed costs orders within 14 days, together with short written submissions, in the event of any disagreement.
[8]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 08 June 2022