FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Central Queensland Development Corporation Pty Ltd (formerly Bluechip Development Corporation (Gladstone) Pty Ltd) v Sunstruct Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1463
Citation:
Appeal from:
Central Queensland Development Corporation Pty Ltd (formerly Bluechip Development Corporation (Gladstone) Pty Ltd) v Sunstruct Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1463
Bluechip Development Corporation (Gladstone) Pty Ltd v Sunstruct Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] FCCA 141
Parties: CENTRAL QUEENSLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 120 112 781 (FORMERLY BLUECHIP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GLADSTONE) PTY LTD) v SUNSTRUCT PTY LTD ACN 104 162 549, MR LORENZO MARIO REGINATO and MR ANTONY JAMES SCHOFIELD File number: QUD 245 of 2013 Judge: DOWSETT J Date of judgment: 17 July 2013
Date of hearing: 17 July 2013 Place: Brisbane Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr R O'Hair Solicitor for the Appellant: IDH Legal Counsel for the Respondents: Mr JW Peden Solicitor for the Respondents: Gadens Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 245 of 2013
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: CENTRAL QUEENSLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 120 112 781 (FORMERLY BLUECHIP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GLADSTONE) PTY LTD)
AppellantAND: SUNSTRUCT PTY LTD ACN 104 162 549
First RespondentMR LORENZO MARIO REGINATO
Second RespondentMR ANTONY JAMES SCHOFIELD
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 JULY 2013
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.the purported appeal be struck out; and
2.there be no order as to costs.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 245 of 2013
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: CENTRAL QUEENSLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 120 112 781 (FORMERLY BLUECHIP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GLADSTONE) PTY LTD)
AppellantAND: SUNSTRUCT PTY LTD ACN 104 162 549
First RespondentMR LORENZO MARIO REGINATO
Second RespondentMR ANTONY JAMES SCHOFIELD
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
17 JULY 2013
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I am presently considering, for the purposes of the Full Court sittings in November of this year, a purported appeal from a decision of Federal Circuit Judge Burnett made on 26 April 2013. It appears, and I am informed, that his Honour made findings generally unfavourable to the putative appellant and findings favourable to the putative respondents on their cross‑claim. The purported notice of appeal is said to be from:
the whole of the judgment and all of the orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia given on 26 April 2013 at Brisbane.
Those orders were:
(1)That the parties submit within 21 days a minute of order giving effect to the findings set out in the reasons for judgment.
(2)That in default of agreement as to an appropriate minute of order either party have liberty to apply for further listing of the application for mention.
In my view, the orders made were clearly interlocutory, and so no appeal lies as of right from them. It may have been possible for the putative appellants to apply for leave to appeal against those orders, but I cannot see that any useful purpose would have been served by that course. No such application has been made. Finalisation of the matter may depend upon the resolution of a dispute concerning moneys paid into a solicitor’s trust account. There is to be a further hearing before Judge Burnett concerning that question. The question of costs has yet to be determined.
In the circumstances, the appeal is incompetent because it is a purported appeal from an interlocutory decision from which an appeal as of right does not lie. In those circumstances, the purported appeal will be struck out.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 20 March 2014
- AGLC
- Central Queensland Development Corporation Pty Ltd (formerly Bluechip Development Corporation (Gladstone) Pty Ltd) v Sunstruct Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1463
- Case
- [2013] FCA 1463
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the Development Agreement and concluded that the document was not a binding contract. The court found that the Development Agreement did not contain essential terms, such as the price, and that the parties had not reached a binding agreement. The court also found that the Development Agreement was a non-binding memorandum of understanding, which did not give rise to any contractual obligations.
The court struck out the appeal and made no order as to costs. The court found that the Development Agreement did not constitute a binding contract, and that the appellant had failed to establish a valid cause of action. The court held that the appeal was without merit and should be dismissed. The court further found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an order as to costs.
The court ordered that the purported appeal be struck out and that there be no order as to costs. The decision of the court is final and binding on the parties, and no further appeals can be made. The court's decision clarifies the legal position regarding the enforceability of the Development Agreement and provides guidance for future cases involving similar issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. the purported appeal be struck out; and
2. there be no order as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.