DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Breen & Anor v Orenshaw [2013] QDC 241
PARTIES:
James R Breen & Mandy L Breen
Plaintiffs/Respondents
And
Wayne Francis Orenshaw
Defendant/Applicant
FILE NO:
D114 of 2011
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:
23 September 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Townsville
HEARING DATE:
30 August 2013
JUDGE:
Durward SC DCJ
ORDERS:
1 Application for summary judgment granted.
2 Parties to be heard as to costs orders.
CATCHWORDS:
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – proceeding for debt – plaintiff previously sued company – plaintiff participated fully as creditor in liquidation – no payment – now sues defendant in person – whether binding and irrevocable election made to pursue company
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – CONTRACT – whether defendant the contracting party – whether defendant an agent for undisclosed principal – relevance of plaintiffs’ subsequent acquisition of knowledge of company as contracting party and delivery of invoices to, statutory notice upon and proceedings to recover debt from company
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – UCPR – APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT – whether proceeding pleads a cause of action – whether need for trial – whether plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding in claim – no relevant factual dispute – whether legal issue can be resolved on application without need for trial
LEGISLATION:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 5, 293.
CASES APPLIED:
CASES CONSIDERED:
Scarf v Jardine (1882) 7 App Cas 345; Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232; Bolton Properties Pty Ltd v JK Investments (Australia) Pty Ltd (2009) 2 Qd R 202.
Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 305; Hill v Colquhoun & Nicholls Pty Ltd (unreported BC 8111050, NSWSC 06 August 1981; Maynegrain Pty Ltd v Compafina Bank [1982] 2 NSW LR 141; United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1941] AC 1;Figliomeni v Steel Supplies (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor (BC8491006 unreported SCWA, No 152 of 1984); Simon v O’Gorman (1979) 27 ALR 619; AutoCaps Australia Pty Ltd v Deposit Investment Company Ltd (Receiver Appointed) (BC 8901590 unreported, NSWSC 16 October 1989); Clarkson, Booker Ltd v Andjel [1964] 3 All ER 260.
COUNSEL:
G Thomae for the defendant/applicant
S McLennan for the plaintiffs/respondents
SOLICITORS:
Mills Oakley Lawyers for the defendant/applicant
Bill Cooper & Associates for the plaintiffs/respondents
This is an application by the defendant:
1. for summary judgment pursuant to r 293 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”);
or in the alternative,
2. to strike out the plaintiff’s claim and/or the statement of claim in their entirety.
The dispute
The plaintiffs operated a business that supplied and erected scaffolding for building works.
The defendant had traded as a sole trader using the name Whitsunday Pole Homes. At a point in time in 2006, he incorporated a company called Whitsunday Pole Homes Pty Ltd (“the company”) and then traded through the company. He entered into…
Continue reading Breen v Orenshaw
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Breen & Anor v Orenshaw [2013] QDC 241
- Case
- [2013] QDC 241
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the proceeding pleaded a cause of action and whether a trial was necessary. The court found that the proceeding did not plead a cause of action as the plaintiff had made a binding and irrevocable election to pursue the company. The subsequent actions of the plaintiff, such as acquiring knowledge of the company as the contracting party and delivering invoices to it, were not relevant to the issue of whether the defendant was the contracting party or an agent for the undisclosed principal. The court also found that there was no real prospect of success for the plaintiff and that the legal issue could be resolved on the application without the need for a trial.
The court granted the defendant's application for summary judgment. The court found that the proceeding did not plead a cause of action and that there was no real prospect of success for the plaintiff. The court noted that the plaintiff had made a binding and irrevocable election to pursue the company and that the subsequent actions of the plaintiff were irrelevant to the issue of whether the defendant was the contracting party or an agent for the undisclosed principal. The court ordered that the parties be heard as to costs orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
1 Application for summary judgment granted.
2 Parties to be heard as to costs orders.
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.