Boyd-King v Evans

[2002] QDC 72

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Boyd-King & Anor v Evans & Anor [2002] QDC 072

PARTIES:

TREVOR BOYD-KING and DORIS IVY WILLIAMS (AKA TARA IVY WILLIAMS) (plaintiffs)

V

KEVIN GEORGE EVANS (first defendant)

MARGARET ISABEL EVANS (second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

544/01

DIVISION:

District Court at Maroochydore

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

5 April 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

25 March 2002

JUDGE:

Dodds DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first defendant for $10 000.00 and interest on $10 000.00 calculated at 9.5% per annum from 12 November 2001 to the date of judgment.  The first defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs.  The cost of the proceeding otherwise be reserved until finalisation of the proceeding

CATCHWORDS:

Olgivie v Adams [1975] VR 1041;

Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1952) 99 CLR 560;

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 292;

Supreme Court Act 1995.

COUNSEL:

G Garrick for the plaintiffs

R Clarke for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

Quinn & Box for the plaintiffs

Hemming & Hart for the first and second defendants

1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for summary judgment against the first defendant.

1. On 17 December 2001 the plaintiffs sued the first and second defendants for     $214 937.14 for monies owing, interests and costs.

1. The statement of claim alleged that the first defendant had held himself out as an operator of ventures in to which third parties could invest for reward, offered third parties the opportunity to participate in joint ventures for reward and conducted meetings of third parties to promote such ventures under the name and style of “The Sunshine Coast Investment Club”.  It further alleged that on or about 7 December 1999 at the first defendant’s invitation the plaintiffs attended a meeting of the Club after which the first defendant invited the plaintiffs and others to pay money to him for investment on the following terms -

·     the money was received by the first defendant on or before 14 December 1999;

·     the money would be applied to a venture by the first defendant for a period of one month following 14 December 1999;

·     at the expiry of one month the money would be returned to the plaintiff with interest thereon at the rate of 500% for the month;

·     the investment was “a sure thing” and was “too good to pass up”; and

·     the first defendant would administer the venture and be in day to day control over the venture.

It further alleged that the plaintiffs paid to the first defendant $34 156.19 on 14 December 1999, $34 156.19 and interest of $170 780.95 should have been repaid on or before 13 January 2000 but was not, and on or about 10 February 2000 at the request of the first defendant the plaintiffs advanced a further $10 000.00 to the first defendant repayable on demand which despite demand by letter of 12 November 2001 has not been repaid.

1. In his defence filed 25 January 2002 the first defendant alleged he…