Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Ruddle

Case [2015] QSC 239


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Ruddle and Ors [2015] QSC 239

PARTIES:

BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE BANK LIMITED ABN 11 068 049 178

(Plaintiff)

v
IAN REGINALD RUDDLE
(First Defendant
)SAMANTHA JANE RUDDLE
(Second Defendant
)SAM RUDDLE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 138 984 880
(Third Defendant
)RUDDCO DRILLING & BLASTING PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO A DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) ACN 073 934 826 IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RUDDCO TRUST

(Fourth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Brisbane No 3805 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to Rule 913(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the Plaintiff be granted leave to issue an enforcement warrant for possession of the land described in:

(a)   Title Reference 50375680 as Lot 10 on SP 141007, County of Ward, Parish of Coomera; and

(b)   Title Reference 50374276 as Lot 10 on SP 141006, County of Ward, Parish of Coomera,

situated at 76 Shipper Drive, Coomera, Queensland 4209 with the appurtenances.

2.   That an Enforcement Warrant be issued by the Court to:

(a)   the First Defendant, Ian Reginald Ruddle;

(b)   the Second Defendant, Samantha Jane Ruddle;

(c)    the Third Defendant, Sam Ruddle Invetments CAN 138 984 880;

(d)   the Fourth Defendant, Ruddco Drilling & Blasting Pty Ltd (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) CAN 073 934 826 in its own right as Trustee for the Ruddco Trust; and

(e)   the Occupants of the land described in

(i)     Title Reference 50375680 as Lot 10 on SP 141007, County of Ward, Parish of Coomera; and

(ii)   (ii) Title Reference 50374276 as Lot 10 on SP 141006, County of Ward, Parish of Coomera,

situated at 76 Shipper Drive, Coomera, Queensland 4209.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 913(2)

COUNSEL:

No appearance for the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s submissions were heard on the papers

No appearance for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s submissions were heard on the papers

No appearance for the defendants

  1. By application filed 28 July 2015, the plaintiff applied for an order that it be given leave pursuant to r 913(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) to issue an enforcement warrant for possession of land situated at 76 Shipper Drive, Coomera in the State of Queensland. The warrant was sought against each of the defendants and the occupants of the land.

  2. On 23 June 2015 the plaintiff obtained an order for possession of the said land.  Despite being served with the order, none of the defendants have complied with the order.  It appears a person other than one of the defendants is presently in occupation of the land.  The identity of that occupant is unknown. 

  3. The land in question consists of a marina berth and an associated storage shed. It is not residential property. However, as it appears that a person other than one of the defendants is presently in occupation of the land under a lease or tenancy agreement, leave is necessary pursuant to r 913(2) of the UCPR.

  4. The plaintiff has validly obtained an order for possession of the land.  The plaintiff suffers ongoing loss and damage by reason of non-compliance with the order delivering up possession of that land.  There is no reason why the plaintiff ought not receive the benefit of that order.

  5. I am satisfied the plaintiff should be granted leave to issue the enforcement warrant for possession of the said land.

  6. I am satisfied it is appropriate to determine the application without an oral hearing.

  7. I make order in terms of the draft which I initial and place with the papers.

Details
AGLC
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Ruddle [2015] QSC 239
Case
[2015] QSC 239
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Ruddle involved the bank seeking enforcement of a judgment against several defendants for unpaid debts. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had jurisdiction over the matter due to the amount in dispute and the nature of the relief sought. The bank, as the plaintiff, was seeking to enforce a judgment for possession of certain land as security for the debts owed by the defendants. The defendants included Ian and Samantha Ruddle, their investment company, and a corporate entity involved in drilling and blasting activities.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff bank was entitled to an enforcement warrant for the possession of the specified land, which had been used as security for the debts. The court needed to determine whether the conditions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) were met to grant such a warrant. This involved assessing the validity of the judgment debt, the appropriateness of the land as security, and whether there were any impediments to the enforcement of the warrant.

The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for the enforcement of the judgment debt under Rule 913(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The judgment debt was valid, and the land in question was an appropriate form of security. The court was satisfied that there were no legal or equitable reasons that would prevent the enforcement of the warrant. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiff leave to issue an enforcement warrant for the possession of the land, as described in the judgment. The warrant was to be issued to the defendants named in the judgment, as well as to any occupants of the land.

The final orders of the court included granting the plaintiff leave to issue an enforcement warrant for the possession of the specified land, and directing that such a warrant be issued to the defendants and any occupants of the land. This decision provided a clear pathway for the plaintiff to enforce the judgment and recover the outstanding debts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to Rule 913(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the Plaintiff be granted leave to issue an enforcement warrant for possession of the land described in:

(a) Title Reference 50375680 as Lot 10 on SP 141007, County of Ward, Parish of Coomera; and

(b) Title Reference 50374276 as Lot 10 on SP 141006, County of Ward, Parish of Coomera,

situated at 76 Shipper Drive, Coomera, Queensland 4209 with the appurtenances.

2. That an Enforcement Warrant be issued by the Court to:

(a) the First Defendant, Ian Reginald Ruddle;

(b) the Second Defendant, Samantha Jane Ruddle;

(c) the Third Defendant, Sam Ruddle Invetments CAN 138 984 880;

(d) the Fourth Defendant, Ruddco Drilling & Blasting Pty Ltd (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) CAN 073 934 826 in its own right as Trustee for the Ruddco Trust; and

(e) the Occupants of the land described in

(i) Title Reference 50375680 as Lot 10 on SP 141007, County of Ward, Parish of Coomera; and

(ii) (ii) Title Reference 50374276 as Lot 10 on SP 141006, County of Ward, Parish of Coomera,

situated at 76 Shipper Drive, Coomera, Queensland 4209.

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.