Burns & Burns T/as Abby's Bargain Centre v McLeod

Case [2004] QCA 384


COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA
JERRARD JA

Appeal No 6131 of 2004

ANDREW BURNS and YVONNE BURNS
T'AS ABBY'S BARGAIN CENTRE (Applicant)              Appellant

and

JOHN ALEXANDER McLEOD AND
LYNETTE ANNE McLEOD (First Respondents)      First Respondents

and

TESRON PTY LTD ACN 002 229 772
T'AS GOLDWELL BANKER CHATEAX REALTY
(Second Respondent)  Second Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/10/2004

ORDER

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  Appeal dismissed.  We take the view that the appellant should pay the costs of the respondents, to be assessed, of and incidental to the appeal and those reserved at first instance.  We order accordingly.

-----

Details
AGLC
Burns & Burns T/as Abby's Bargain Centre v McLeod [2004] QCA 384
Case
[2004] QCA 384
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Queensland Court of Appeal was an appeal from a decision in the District Court, where the appellants, Burns & Burns T/as Abby's Bargain Centre, sought to set aside a default judgment entered against them. The respondents, John and Lynette McLeod, and Tesron Pty Ltd, sought to enforce a judgment in their favour in relation to the sale of a property. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellants had a valid defence to the claim and whether the District Court judge erred in entering a default judgment against them.

The appellants argued that the District Court judge erred in not allowing them to present their defence, which was that they had an oral agreement with the respondents for the sale of a property, and that the written contract was not a true reflection of their agreement. The respondents contended that the appellants had failed to establish a valid defence and that the District Court judge was correct in entering a default judgment against them. The court considered the evidence and submissions of both parties and determined that the appellants had not established a valid defence to the claim. The court found that the appellants had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of an oral agreement and that the written contract was the true agreement between the parties.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants had not demonstrated any error on the part of the District Court judge in entering a default judgment against them. The court found that the appellants had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the written contract was the true agreement between the parties. The court further held that the appellants had not established any grounds for setting aside the default judgment, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the appellants pay the costs of the respondents, to be assessed, of and incidental to the appeal and those reserved at first instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.