Eaton v Rare Nominees Pty Limited [2019] QCA 242
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Eaton v Rare Nominees Pty Limited [2019] QCA 242
PARTIES: CHRISTOPHER JOHN EATON
(appellant)
v
RARE NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 094 976 833 as
trustee for the MACKELLAR FAMILY
SUPERANNUATION FUND
(respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 11105 of 2017
DC No 4799 of 2015
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane – [2017] QDC 238 (Dorney QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON: 5 November 2019
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers
JUDGES: Philippides and McMurdo JJA and Davis J
ORDER: The application for an indemnity certificate under s 15(1)
of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) is refused.
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE –
QUEENSLAND – APPEAL COSTS FUND – POWER TO
GRANT INDEMNITY CERTIFICATE – GENERAL
PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the
respondent submitted that it ought to be granted an indemnity
certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld)
– where the respondent’s submissions advanced below were
central to the primary judge’s decision – whether an indemnity
certificate should be granted
Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), s 15
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244, considered
Eaton v Rare Nominees Pty Limited [2019] QCA 190, cited
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation
(1984) 156 CLR 41; [1984] HCA 64, considered
COUNSEL: S B Whitten for the appellant
B A Hall for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Saal & Associates for the appellant
Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers for the respondent
-- 1 of 2 --
2
[1] PHILIPPIDES JA: On 13 September 2019, this Court made orders:
1. allowing an appeal brought by Christopher Eaton (the appellant) against Rare
Nominees Pty Ltd (the respondent);
2. setting aside the judgment of the District Court for the appellant against the
respondent; and
3. setting aside costs orders made by the trial judge and ordering that the
respondent pay to the appellant his costs of the proceeding against him and of
the appeal.
[2] The respondent now applies for an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 15 of the Appeal
Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) contending that the appeal was allowed on the basis of
a question of law. In that regard, the respondent relies on paras [64] to [71] of my
reasons and the reasons of McMurdo JA at [73] and [81] and the concurring reasons
of Davis J at [89].1
[3] The critical issue on the appeal concerned the trial judge’s finding that a fiduciary
relationship arose in the context of a joint venture agreement between E-Coastal
Developments Pty Ltd (E-Coastal) and the respondent and the consequential finding
that the appellant was liable pursuant to the second limb in Barnes v Addy2 for
a breach by E-Coastal of its fiduciary duty owed to the respondent. The trial judge’s
finding that a fiduciary relationship arose failed to give proper consideration to the
critical feature that such a relationship arises where the fiduciary undertakes or agrees
to act “for or on behalf of” and “in the interests of” another person in the exercise of
a power or discretion which will affect the interests of the other person in a legal or
practical sense as outlined in Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical
Corporation.3
[4] In particular, the trial judge erred in failing to consider how the imposition of the
fiduciary relationship contended for at trial accorded with or was consistent with the
contractual provisions of the Joint Venture Agreement to which the parties had agreed.
[5] The error by the trial judge was one in respect of which the respondent made
submissions arguing the position ultimately adopted by the trial judge. In those
circumstances, it is not appropriate for an indemnity certificate to be issued.
[6] McMURDO JA: I agree with the order proposed by Philippides JA, for the reason
given by her in [5].
[7] DAVIS J: I agree with the reasons and order proposed by Philippides JA.
1 Eaton v Rare Nominees Pty Limited [2019] QCA 190.
2 (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244.
3 (1984) 156 CLR 41.
-- 2 of 2 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCA/2019/242