Ball v Pacimar Trading Pty Ltd

[2004] QDC 566

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 3922 of 2002

TERESITA SALVA BALL	Plaintiff
and
PACIMAR TRADING PTY LTD (ACN 088 074 864)	Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 30/09/2004

ORDER

Catchwords: District Court of Queensland Act 1967 s.68, s.69 - consent orders including order for removal of caveat in compromise of proceeding for declarations - amendment of statement of claim required to demonstrate claim fell within court's monetary jurisdiction.

HIS HONOUR: I have marked Exhibit 1 a document entitled "Consent to Orders" signed by the plaintiff who is not here today and by the defendant's solicitors.

Mr Mills assures the Court that the signature purporting to be the plaintiff's is indeed that and that he personally witnessed it applied last week. The document disposes of the whole proceeding, incorporating a provision that it be dismissed with the parties to bear their own costs. It also includes an order for removal of a caveat which Mr Mills tells me is not part of any application. However, if there is a caveat it is obviously caught up in the subject matter of the proceedings and we have the plaintiff's signature to a document inviting the Court to order removal of the caveat.
This is enough to bind the parties to get the caveat removed as a matter of contract.

I am satisfied that under the ancillary jurisdiction which the Court has under s.69 of the District Court of Queensland Act that order about the caveat can be made. The principal proceeding is clearly one of a kind within the Court's jurisdiction under s.68(1)(b) of the District Court of Queensland Act for a declaration that the plaintiff has a beneficial ownership as to one-half of the property.
However, it does not appear on the face of the proceeding that it falls within the monetary limit of the jurisdiction. Unless this is remedied, orders should not be made.

...
HIS HONOUR: I think what I ought to do is order that the statement of claim be amended to add a paragraph 11 as follows:
"The value of the property is less than $250,000."

...

HIS HONOUR: Further orders by consent as per paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit 1.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ball v Pacimar Trading Pty Ltd involves the plaintiff, Teresita Salva Ball, and the defendant, Pacimar Trading Pty Ltd. The dispute centres on a claim for declarations of beneficial ownership and the removal of a caveat from a property, as well as costs associated with the proceedings. The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The court was tasked with considering the consent orders submitted by the parties, which included the dismissal of the proceeding, the removal of a caveat from the property, and an order for each party to bear their own costs. The key legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the court had jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the parties and whether the monetary value of the claim fell within the court's jurisdiction.

The court began by examining the consent orders, which included an order for the removal of a caveat. The court noted that the plaintiff had signed a document agreeing to the removal of the caveat and that this was sufficient to bind the parties to the removal of the caveat as a matter of contract. The court also considered whether it had jurisdiction to make the order for the removal of the caveat under section 69 of the District Court of Queensland Act. The court found that the principal proceeding fell within the court's jurisdiction under section 68(1)(b) of the Act, but that it did not appear on the face of the proceeding that it fell within the monetary limit of the jurisdiction. The court therefore ordered that the statement of claim be amended to include a paragraph stating that the value of the property was less than $250,000. The court also made further orders by consent as per paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit 1.

In conclusion, the court found that it had jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the parties, but that the statement of claim needed to be amended to demonstrate that the claim fell within the court's monetary jurisdiction. The court made the necessary orders and dismissed the proceeding with each party to bear their own costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established