Breen v Orenshaw

Case [2013] QDC 241


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

  1. 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

  1. The plaintiffs operated a business that supplied and erected scaffolding for building works.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Breen & Anor v Orenshaw [2013] QDC 241
Case
[2013] QDC 241
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Breen, sought to recover a debt from the defendant, Orenshaw, following the liquidation of a company, which the plaintiff had previously sued without success. The plaintiff had actively participated in the liquidation as a creditor but received no payment. Breen then sued Orenshaw in person, claiming that Orenshaw was either the contracting party or an agent for the undisclosed principal. Orenshaw applied for summary judgment, arguing that the proceeding did not plead a cause of action and that there was no real prospect of success for Breen. Orenshaw contended that the plaintiff had made a binding and irrevocable election to pursue the company and that the plaintiff's subsequent actions, such as acquiring knowledge of the company as the contracting party and delivering invoices to it, were irrelevant.

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.