DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Bailey v. O'Rourke & Anor [2000] QSC 465 PARTIES: ROBERT BAILEY Plaintiff
And
MICHAEL ROBERT O'ROURKE First Defendant
And
KAREN MARY McGILL Second DefendantFILE NO/S: 1990 of 1996 DIVISION: Civil Jurisdiction PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED ON: 2 November 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 27, 28 and 29 September 2000 JUDGE: Judge Samios ORDER: Order that the contract be set aside. Plaintiff's claim against the defendants dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Rejfek v. McElroy (1964-5) 112 CLR 517;
Krakowski v. Eurolynx (1995) 130 ALR1;Alati v. Kruger (1995) 94 CLR 216 at 223-226;
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 AC 337;
Gould v. Vaggelas (1984) 157 CLR 215;
Gould & Birbeck & Bacon v. Mount Oxide Mines Limited (in Liquidation) (1916) 22 CLR 490 at 517;
COUNSEL:
Mr Trout for the plaintiff
Mr Forde for the first and second defendantsSOLICITORS: Bowdens Lawyers for the plaintiff
Holland & Holland for the first and second defendants
The plaintiff claims against the defendants the sum of $74,083.32 for monies the plaintiff claims is due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff pursuant to a contract.
The sum of $74,083.32 is the addition of $35,000 being the purchase price provided for in the contract and the sum of $39,083.32 being interest pursuant to the terms of the contract from 5 March 1995 until the date of trial.
The contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants on 3 March 1995. By the contract the plaintiff sold to the defendants the plaintiff's business known as "Bailey Investigations and Security Services".
The plaintiff and the defendants agreed pursuant to the contract that the plaintiff would transfer the business to the defendants on 3 March 1995. Further, that the defendants would pay the plaintiff the sum of $35,000 as the price for the business. With respect to the payment of the purchase price, Special Condition 3 of the contract provided-
"3. The parties agree that no deposit shall be payable in relation to this Contract. Payment is to be made by way of a minimum payment of $1,000.00 per month or 80% of the gross takings for the month, whichever shall be the greater with the first payment due on 1 April 1995, and each subsequent payment due on the first of each month thereafter. The Purchaser is required to make this minimum payment, however, is entitled to pre-pay any amount owing hereunder. The parties acknowledge that the final payment may be for an amount less than $1,000.00 or 80% of the gross takings of that final month. The Purchasers acknowledge that all records and figures will be made available to the Vendor on request in order to verify gross takings. Interest shall be payable on the outstanding balance at a rate of interest which shall be the equivalent of the interest rate charged on an overdraft facility by the Westpac Banking Corporation. Interest shall run from 28 February 1994, and shall be payable monthly in advance. The…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bailey v O'Rourke and McGill and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2000] QDC 465
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the defendants made a fraudulent misrepresentation that induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract. The court had to consider the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation, including the requirement of a false statement of fact, knowledge of its falsity, and intention to induce the other party to enter into the contract. The court also had to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by both parties.
The court found that the defendants did not make any fraudulent misrepresentation. The evidence did not support the plaintiff's claim that the defendants knew the misrepresentations were false or intended to induce the plaintiff into the contract. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the necessary elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. Consequently, the contract was not set aside, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendants was dismissed.
The court ordered that the contract remain in effect and that the plaintiff's claim against the defendants be dismissed with no orders for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order that the contract be set aside. Plaintiff's claim against the defendants dismissed.
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.