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 1Re Estate of Andrej Urbancic [2000] QSC 170, distinguished
Smith v Glegg [2004] QSC 443, consideredCOUNSEL: CC Heyworth-Smith for the applicant
DJ Morgan for the respondentSOLICITORS: De Groots for the applicant McCullough Robertson for the respondent
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 19981. 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
- AGLC
- Allingham v Fuller & Anor [2013] QSC 81
- Case
- [2013] QSC 81
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.