CRCI P/L v Menzies

[2009] QDC 315

[2009] QDC 315

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 7 of 2009

CRCI PTY LTD	Plaintiff
and
IAN DAVID MENZIES and	Defendants
COLLEEN ANNE MENZIES
MARYBOROUGH ..DATE 25/09/2009
ORDER

Catchwords: Enforcement of purported judgment of the Supreme
Court of New South Wales stayed where sealed copy of the
judgment filed showed (presumably erroneously) a money
judgment for the defendants against the plaintiff, which had
proceeded as "judgment creditor" and obtained an enforcement
warrant
HIS HONOUR: I order that the enforcement warrant of the 20th

1

of January 2009 be stayed until the later of (a) 31st October,
2009 and (b) the filing in the registry of a certificate of
judgment establishing that CRCI Pty Ltd has a judgment in the
Supreme Court of New South Wales against Ian David Menzies and

Colleen Anne Menzies or earlier order and grant liberty to	10
apply.
...
What is before the Court is an application by Ian David	20
Menzies and Colleen Anne Menzies seeking a stay of an
enforcement warrant which is dated 20 January 2009 for "three months so as the seized home of the defendants can be sold in an orderly manner, so as to satisfy the plaintiff's owner, Ron
Blyth who is Ian Menzies first cousin."	30
The bailiff was present before Judge Tutt on 27th of July 2009
when the application was returnable, having been filed on the
6th of July 2009; he is present today. Ms Kerle represents
CRCI Pty Ltd which presents itself as the enforcement	40
creditor, but on the last day a principal, Mr Ponti, appeared.
His Honour adjourned the matter to the end of September. The
bailiff advises that Mr Ponti had undertaken to get him to
hold action until the end of September. The matter has come	50

on today because it's the last day on which there'll be a
Judge in Maryborough until the 30th of November.
Ms Kerle, in the absence of the Menzies, asked the Court to 2 ORDER 60

1

dismiss the application so that her client could proceed.
Ordinarily that might be the correct outcome. However my
perusal of the file indicates that this whole enforcement
proceeding is very much under a cloud. It is said to be based

on a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.	10
This Court opened its file with a "judgment/order" bearing the
seal of that Court and under the heading case number 20394 of
2005 describing the company as plaintiff and the Menzies as
defendants, the document shows a judgment given on the 12th of	20
December 2007 entered on the 13th of December 2007 followed by:

"TERMS OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

1. Verdict and judgement for the Defendants.	30
2. The Plaintiff’s to pay the Defendants’ costs in the

agreed sum of eight thousand dollars ($80,000.00).

3. The Plaintiff is to have six months time to pay from

the date hereof.

4. No interest is to accrue during the period referred to 40

in Order 3 above."

That material is inconsistent with the basis on which the
parties in this Maryborough proceeding have been operating.

The Menzies appear to accept that there's a judgment against	50
them. Due no doubt to some error or a series of errors the document sealed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales and dated 15 January 2009 which is document number 1 on the

3 ORDER 60

Maryborough Court file is totally inadequate to support any

1

kind of enforcement proceeding against the Menzies who are
solemnly certified by the Supreme Court of New South Wales to
have been the victors in the litigation there and entitled to

a judgment, the amount of which is uncertain.

10

I would have thought basic to enforcement proceedings of the
present kind in aid of a judgment from another jurisdiction
that a reliable certificate for purposes of section 15 of the
(Commonwealth) Foreign Judgments Act 1991 or rule 947N or

equivalent be provided, that for interstate judgments there be	20
a sealed copy of a judgment as contemplated in s105 of the (Commonwealth) Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 appropriate to lead to the enforcement warrant requested. That is emphatically not the case here.
30
I am inclined to think that errors have occurred which can
probably be overcome by a correct certificate being obtained
by the company and filed. But enforcement, in my view, ought
not to proceed until that has happened. The warrant issued
immediately upon the filing of the sealed "judgment/order"	40
from the Supreme Court of New South Wales and it would appear without adequate scrutiny of the document in the registry here.
It remains to be seen what will happen next. The warrant will	50
be good for a year. It might be that in the next sitting of the Court here the company makes application for a renewal.

-----

4 ORDER 60