Amos v Wiltshire

[2017] QDC 209

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Amos v Wiltshire [2017] QDC 209

PARTIES:

EDWARD AMOS

(Plaintiff)

And

CHRISTOPHER JAMES RAYMOND WILTSHIRE

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1527 of 2009

DIVISION:

District Court, Brisbane

PROCEEDING:

Hearing of an application

DELIVERED ON:

12 July 2017 – delivered Ex Tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 July 2017

JUDGE:

RS Jones DCJ

ORDER:

1. The enforcement warrant issued by the registrar of this court in this proceeding on 2 March 2017 be amended by deleting the sum claimed in the said warrant for “interest thereafter”, namely “$28/day”, and inserting in lieu thereof the sum “$27.40/day”.

2. That the registrar of the court make the said amendment.

3. That the plaintiff, Edward Amos, pay 80% of the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the application filed by the defendant, on the standard basis.

4. That the plaintiff’s application filed 5 June 2017 be dismissed.

COUNSEL:

FL Harrison with PG Jeffery for the Plaintiff

P O’Shea QC with K Boulton for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Keller Nall and Brown, solicitors for the Plaintiff

Sharma Lawyers, solicitors for the Defendant

1. These proceedings are concerned with two applications:  one by Mr Amos, who I will refer to as the applicant, and the other by Mr Wiltshire, who I will refer to as the respondent.  The applicant and the respondent have been involved in litigation in one form or the other for many years now.  In these proceedings, the applicant seeks to have an enforcement warrant set aside or, in the alternative, stayed, pending the outcome of certain events.  I will come to those in a moment.  That application is opposed by the respondent, who, in turn, seeks to enforce the warrant subject to some rectification.

1. The unfortunate background to these proceedings is set out in the Court of Appeal judgment of Amos v Wiltshire [2016] QCA 77, at paragraphs 2 through to 7. At the risk of understating things, the history reveals a reluctance on the part of the applicant to part with his money, even if so ordered to do so by the Court. In any event, on 28 August 2015, the Court made a number of orders and, in particular, order 4, which provided:

The applicant is to pay to the respondent the sum of $200,288.90, being the claim, costs and interest to today, together with the interests on the sum of $133,390.28, pursuant to section 59(3) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011, such interest to be calculated from 28 August 2015 until the date of payment.

1. I pause to note there that the applicant in that proceeding is the applicant before me today, and the respondent, of course, is the respondent before me today.

1. In dismissing the applicant’s case, Fraser, Justice of Appeal, with Justices of Appeal Gotterson and Philippides agreeing, had this to say, at paragraphs 35 to 38:

Those are reasons enough to regard the respondent’s 24 August 2015 application as being insufficiently meritorious to grant the adjournment which the respondent sought.  But there was…