Allingham v Fuller

Case [2013] QSC 81


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Allingham v Fuller & Anor [2013] QSC 81

PARTIES:

PETER GERALD ALLINGHAM
(applicant)
v
PATRICIA JOAN FULLER
(first respondent)
and
PATRICIA JOAN FULLER AND ALYCIA JANE SNELL AS EXECUTORS OF THE WILL OF GERALD GORDON ALLILNGHAM DECEASED
(second respondents)

FILE NO:

BS2281/12

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

2 April 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 August 2012

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDERS:

The application for summary judgment is dismissed;1.      

The costs of and incidental to that application are reserved;2.      

3.      Liberty to the parties to apply for further orders and directions.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where the applicant made an originating application for compensation under s106 or, in the alternative, s 107 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (“the Act”) – where the applicant had been granted leave to make the application out of time – where the first and second respondents seek summary judgment to be entered against the applicant pursuant to R293 of the UCPR – where the respondents did not file a notice of intention to defend – whether the application for summary judgment should be allowed

Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld), ss 87, 106, 107
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 4(2), 134, 291, 292, 293
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), Schedule 1

Re Estate of Andrej Urbancic [2000] QSC 170, distinguished
Smith v Glegg [2004] QSC 443, considered

COUNSEL: CC Heyworth-Smith for the applicant
DJ Morgan for the respondent
SOLICITORS: De Groots for the applicant

McCullough Robertson for the respondent

  1. This proceeding was commenced by an originating application filed by Peter        Allingham (“the applicant”) seeking the following:

“TAKE NOTICE that the applicant is applying to the Court for the following orders –
Section 106 Powers of Attorney Act 1998

1. That pursuant to section 106(5) Powers of Attorney Act 1998 the applicant be granted leave to make this application out of time.

2. That pursuant to section 106(1) Powers of Attorney Act 1998, the first respondent be ordered to compensate the estate of GERALD GORDON ALLINGHAM for the loss caused by the respondent’s failure to comply with the provisions of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 in the exercise of the powers under the Act (‘compensation sum’);

Section 107 Powers of Attorney Act 1998

3. In the alternative to orders 1 and 2, that pursuant to section 107(4) Powers of Attorney Act 1998 the applicant be granted leave to make this application out of time.

4. That pursuant to section 107(3) Powers of Attorney Act 1998, the Applicant be compensated from the estate of GERALD GORDON ALLINGHAM for the loss suffered by him by reason of the first respondent’s dealing with the property of the deceased, while acting as power of attorney (“compensation sum”);

General

5.   That the first respondent pay interest at the rate of 9%…

Continue reading Allingham v Fuller

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Allingham v Fuller & Anor [2013] QSC 81
Case
[2013] QSC 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Allingham v Fuller, the applicant sought compensation under the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (the Act) from the first and second respondents, who were the attorneys of the applicant's father. The applicant had initially made an originating application for compensation under sections 106 or 107 of the Act but was granted leave to make the application out of time. The respondents subsequently sought summary judgment against the applicant, as they had not filed a notice of intention to defend. The central issue before the court was whether the respondents' application for summary judgment should be allowed.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (the UCPR) and the Act to determine whether the application for summary judgment was appropriate. The court noted that the respondents had not filed a notice of intention to defend, which is typically a requirement for summary judgment. However, the court also considered the circumstances in which the applicant had been granted leave to make the application out of time and whether the respondents had any legitimate defence to the claim. The court held that, given the circumstances of the case, it was not appropriate to grant summary judgment to the respondents.

The court dismissed the respondents' application for summary judgment and reserved the costs of and incidental to that application. The court also granted liberty to the parties to apply for further orders and directions as necessary. This decision highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of a case when determining whether to grant summary judgment and the need for parties to carefully consider their options when seeking or defending against such applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for summary judgment is dismissed;1.

The costs of and incidental to that application are reserved;2.

3. Liberty to the parties to apply for further orders and directions.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.