Boden v Boden

[2009] QDC 194

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 641 of 1997

ELIZABETH ANN BODEN	Plaintiff
and
JOHN BARRINGTON BODEN	Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/06/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORD: Uniform Civil procedures Rules s 799 - leave to enforce a judgment more than 6 years old - ex parte application

HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. It's made ex parte, which is permissible under the sub-rule (3) of Rule 799 on which the application is based. The plaintiff/applicant requires the leave of the Court given the time that's elapsed without enforcement proceedings being taken in respect of a judgment for a principal amount of $30,000, encapsulated in an order of Judge McLauchlan QC of the 10th of May 2000 which was made by consent. It appears that, applying interest at 6 per cent, the aggregate of principal and interest is now some $50,684.63.

If it were necessary to advance any reason for the plaintiff's inactivity, that can be found in her relationship to the defendant, whose mother she is. She is a very elderly lady who has now come to the conclusion that the defendant will do nothing "voluntarily" towards satisfying the judgment. It's therefore appropriate that the order be made; it includes a provision that he pay costs on the standard basis. Given that the order's made in his absence, he will have the ordinary right of a litigant in such circumstances to approach the Court if there's any proper basis for seeking to have the order changed or satisfied.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Boden v Boden, the plaintiff, Elizabeth Ann Boden, sought leave from the Queensland District Court to enforce a judgment against her son, John Barrington Boden. The original judgment, entered on May 10, 2000, awarded the plaintiff $30,000, with interest accruing at 6% per annum, bringing the total amount to approximately $50,684.63. The plaintiff filed an ex parte application under Rule 799 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, seeking to enforce the judgment despite the significant time elapsed since its issuance. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to grant the plaintiff's request to enforce the judgment, which had not been acted upon for over nine years, given the circumstances and the passage of time.

The court addressed the issue by considering the delay in enforcement and the relationship between the parties, specifically the fact that the plaintiff is the defendant's mother. The court acknowledged that the plaintiff's delay could be attributed to her expectation that the defendant would voluntarily satisfy the judgment. Given the plaintiff's advanced age and the lack of progress in collecting the judgment, the court found it appropriate to grant the plaintiff's application. The court emphasized that the defendant would retain the right to challenge the order if he had a valid basis for doing so, but in the absence of such a challenge, the court proceeded to grant the requested leave. The order includes a provision for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on a standard basis.

The court's decision resulted in an order permitting the enforcement of the original judgment against John Barrington Boden, with costs to be paid by him on a standard basis. This decision underscores the court's willingness to facilitate the enforcement of judgments, even after a significant period, provided there are valid reasons for the delay and the application is made in good faith.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established