Caxton Street Agencies Pty Ltd v Korkidas - [2002] QSC 210

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Caxton Street Agencies Pty Ltd v Korkidas & Anor [2002] QSC 210

PARTIES:

CAXTON STREET AGENCIES PTY LTD
ACN 010 381 174
(respondent/plaintiff)
v
MICHAEL KORKIDAS
(first applicant/first defendant)
KATINA KORKIDAS
(second applicant/second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S 1533 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for summary judgment

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 June 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 June 2002

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDER:

That the defendant’s application for summary judgment on the statement of claim be dismissed; 1.

that the plaintiff have leave to amend its statement of claim in accordance with exhibit “B” to the affidavit of Mr LeMass filed on 21 June 2002, subject to compliance with Rule 382;2.

that the defendants make further and better disclosure in terms of the plaintiff’s application filed herein on 21 June 2002. 3.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Application for summary judgment on plaintiff’s statement of claim – whether plaintiff has real prospect of succeeding on its claim – whether need for trial.

TAXES AND DUTIES – STAMP DUTIES – WHAT TRANSACTIONS OF INSTRUMENTS ARE LIABLE – GENERALLY – QUEENSLAND
Whether unstamped contract of sale, for which there exists an undertaking to pay stamp duties, may be relied upon as founding a cause of action.

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE – MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT – STATEMENTS OF INTENTION, NEGOTIATIONS AND INVITATIONS TO TREAT
Whether formal contract executed – whether intention to create binding legal agreement.

CONTRACTS – PARTICULAR PARTIES – PRINCIPLE AND AGENT – AUTHORITY OF AGENTS – CONSTRUCTION AND EXTENT OF AUTHORITY – IMPLIED AUTHORITY OF GENERAL AGENTS
Whether first defendant had actual or ostensible authority to sign contract of sale in second defendant’s name.

Duties Act 2001, s 487, s 509
Stamp Act 1894, s 4A(I)
Taxation Administration Act 2001, Div 3
Uniform Civil Procedure (U.K.) r 24(4)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 292, r 292(3)

Australian Broadcasting Commission v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540.
Bridal Estates v Myer Realty Pty Ltd (1977) 51 ALRJ 743.
CSR Limited v Casaron Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 021.
Dent v Moore (1919) 26 CLR 316.
Farrelly v Hircock (No. 1) [1971] Qd R 341.
Foodco Management Pty Ltd & Anor v Go My Travel Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 291.
Geebung Investments Pty Ltd v Varga Group Investments (No. 8) Pty Ltd (1995) 7 BPR 14 551.
Howard Smith & Co. Ltd v Varawa (1907) 5 CLR 68.
Hoggett v O’Rourke [2001] 1 Qd R 490.
McPhee v Zarb [2002] QSC 004.
Marek v Australasian Conference Association Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 521.
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353.
Richlaw Pty Ltd v Blackburne [1998] WASCA 120.
Shepherd v Felt and textiles of Australia Limited (1931) 45 CLR 359.
Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Caxton Street Agencies Pty Ltd v Korkidas and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] QSC 210
Decision Date: 28 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Caxton Street Agencies Pty Ltd v Korkidas involved the plaintiff, Caxton Street Agencies, applying for summary judgment on its statement of claim against the defendant, Korkidas. The primary dispute centred around stamp duties and the applicability of these duties to certain transactions and instruments under Queensland law. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff had a real prospect of succeeding in its claim and if a trial was necessary. The plaintiff argued that certain transactions were subject to stamp duty and sought summary judgment to avoid a full trial. The defendant contested this, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim did not meet the criteria for summary judgment and that there were genuine issues of fact that required a trial. The court had to weigh the evidence and arguments presented to decide if the plaintiff’s claim was sufficiently clear and strong to warrant summary judgment or if the matter should proceed to a full trial.

In its reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff's claim was not straightforward enough to warrant summary judgment. There were significant factual disputes and questions about the applicability of stamp duties to the specific transactions in question. The court held that these issues required a trial to be properly resolved. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend its statement of claim to better reflect the facts and legal arguments, and the defendant was ordered to provide further disclosure in line with the plaintiff's earlier application. The court concluded that the application for summary judgment should be dismissed.

The final orders were that the defendant's application for summary judgment was dismissed, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend its statement of claim in accordance with the specified exhibit, and the defendant was required to make further and better disclosure as per the plaintiff's application.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the defendant’s application for summary judgment on the statement of claim be dismissed; 1.

that the plaintiff have leave to amend its statement of claim in accordance with exhibit “B” to the affidavit of Mr LeMass filed on 21 June 2002, subject to compliance with Rule 382;2.

that the defendants make further and better disclosure in terms of the plaintiff’s application filed herein on 21 June 2002. 3.

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.

CITATION:	Caxton Street Agencies Pty Ltd v Korkidas & Anor [2002] QSC 210
PARTIES:	CAXTON STREET AGENCIES PTY LTD ACN 010 381 174 (respondent/plaintiff) v MICHAEL KORKIDAS (first applicant/first defendant) KATINA KORKIDAS (second applicant/second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S 1533 of 2002
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for summary judgment
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 June 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 June 2002
JUDGE:	Holmes J
ORDER:	That the defendant’s application for summary judgment on the statement of claim be dismissed; 1. that the plaintiff have leave to amend its statement of claim in accordance with exhibit “B” to the affidavit of Mr LeMass filed on 21 June 2002, subject to compliance with Rule 382;2. that the defendants make further and better disclosure in terms of the plaintiff’s application filed herein on 21 June 2002. 3.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT Application for summary judgment on plaintiff’s statement of claim – whether plaintiff has real prospect of succeeding on its claim – whether need for trial. TAXES AND DUTIES – STAMP DUTIES – WHAT TRANSACTIONS OF INSTRUMENTS ARE LIABLE – GENERALLY – QUEENSLAND Whether unstamped contract of sale, for which there exists an undertaking to pay stamp duties, may be relied upon as founding a cause of action. CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE – MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT – STATEMENTS OF INTENTION, NEGOTIATIONS AND INVITATIONS TO TREAT Whether formal contract executed – whether intention to create binding legal agreement. CONTRACTS – PARTICULAR PARTIES – PRINCIPLE AND AGENT – AUTHORITY OF AGENTS – CONSTRUCTION AND EXTENT OF AUTHORITY – IMPLIED AUTHORITY OF GENERAL AGENTS Whether first defendant had actual or ostensible authority to sign contract of sale in second defendant’s name. Duties Act 2001, s 487, s 509 Stamp Act 1894, s 4A(I) Taxation Administration Act 2001, Div 3 Uniform Civil Procedure (U.K.) r 24(4) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 292, r 292(3) Australian Broadcasting Commission v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540. Bridal Estates v Myer Realty Pty Ltd (1977) 51 ALRJ 743. CSR Limited v Casaron Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 021. Dent v Moore (1919) 26 CLR 316. Farrelly v Hircock (No. 1) [1971] Qd R 341. Foodco Management Pty Ltd & Anor v Go My Travel Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 291. Geebung Investments Pty Ltd v Varga Group Investments (No. 8) Pty Ltd (1995) 7 BPR 14 551. Howard Smith & Co. Ltd v Varawa (1907) 5 CLR 68. Hoggett v O’Rourke [2001] 1 Qd R 490. McPhee v Zarb [2002] QSC 004. Marek v Australasian Conference Association Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 521. Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353. Richlaw Pty Ltd v Blackburne [1998] WASCA 120. Shepherd v Felt and textiles of Australia Limited (1931) 45 CLR 359. Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91.