NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Tjiong v Tjiong [2012] NSWCA 201 Hearing dates: 28, 29 February 2012 Decision date: 29 June 2012 Before: Whealy JA at [1]; Meagher JA at [2]; Barrett JA at [208] Decision: (1)Appellant's application to adduce further evidence on appeal dismissed. (2)Appeal dismissed. (3)Respondents' application to adduce further evidence on appeal dismissed. (4)Appellant pay respondents' costs of the appeal including the costs of the applications to adduce further evidence. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: APPEAL - application to rely on further evidence - directed to issue relevant to assessment of appellant's credibility - whether "special grounds" - whether requirement of probability of different result satisfied - whether evidence credible - whether evidence available or could reasonably have been obtained - relevance of gravity of findings
TRUSTS - establishment of discretionary trust - whether respondents' consent procured by fraudulent misrepresentation - whether appellant fabricated a claim upon brother's estate to delay distributions to respondents - whether appellant fabricated evidence in support of his case - whether primary judge erred in making findings adverse to appellant on facts in issue and issues relevant to assessment of credibility - findings based in part on demeanour Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898 Cases Cited: Agbaba v Witter (1977) 14 ALR 187; 51 ALJR 503 Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155 Black v Lipovac [1998] FCA 699; 217 ALR 386 Brown v Dean [1910] AC 373 CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67; 197 CLR 172 Chang v Tjiong [2009] NSWSC 122 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission [1993] HCA 78; 177 CLR 472 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Gallagher v The Queen [1986] HCA 26; 160 CLR 392 Hampson v Hampson [2010] NSWCA 359 Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v Bubb [2000] 1 WLR 2318 Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 Lipovac v Hamilton Holdings Pty Ltd [1996] ACTSC 98 McCann v Parsons [1954] HCA 70; 93 CLR 418 Mastronardi v State of New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 54 Mickelberg v The Queen [1989] HCA 35; 167 CLR 259 Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 346; 53 NSWLR 116 Orr v Holmes [1948] HCA 16; 76 CLR 632 Phoenix Commercial Enterprises Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2010] NSWCA 64 Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35; 131 CLR 510 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) [1999] HCA 3; 160 ALR 588 Tjiong v Tjiong [2010] NSWSC 578 Transview Properties Ltd v City Site Properties Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1255 Wollongong Corporation v Cowan [1955] HCA 16; 93 CLR 435 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Richard Tat Tjhien Tjiong (Appellant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate