Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75

High Court of Australia Gibbs C.J. Murphy, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ. Gibbs C.J. Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ. Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75

ORDER Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed with costs against the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents (appellants by cross-appeal). Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside and in lieu thereof order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs. Order that the order of this Court dated 6 November 1984 be amended pursuant to O. 29, r. 11 of the High Court Rules as follows:

(1) in par. (a) of that order, for the words and figures "One Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($1,427,000.00)", substitute the words and figures "One Million Four Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($1,427,500.00)", and

(2) by adding the following paragraph: "THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that there be interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the judgment debt for the period from 18 September 1981 to 6 November 1984."

Order that the appellants pay the costs of this application.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1984, Nov. 6 Gibbs C.J.

My brother Wilson and my brother Dawson have set out in their judgments the facts which gave rise to the three questions that fall for decision in this case and I shall endeavour to avoid any duplication of the recital. The first question for decision is whether the conclusion of the learned trial judge, Connolly J., that the appellants ("the Goulds") were induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation of the first respondent ("Vaggelas") to enter into the transactions in question, was influenced by an erroneous view as to the onus of proof. That question should, in my opinion, be answered in the negative for the reasons given by my brother Wilson, with which I agree.