CSR Limited v Casaron Pty Ltd - [2002] QSC 21

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

CSR Limited v Casaron Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] QSC 021

PARTIES:

CSR LIMITED (ACN 000 001 276)
(plaintiff)
v
CASARON PTY LTD (ACN 077 155 429)
(first defendant)
PETER JOHN DANCE
(second defendant)
ELIZABETH ANN DANCE
(third defendan)

FILE NO/S:

S 6708 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 February 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2002

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the amount of $298,664.22.

Application for judgment against the second defendant dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Where plaintiff seeks summary judgment against the defendants for a liquidated debt arising out of the supply of building material – whether the defendant had a real prospect of successfully defending all or a part of the plaintiff’s claim.

SALE OF GOODS – PASSING OF PROPERTY AND RISK – ROMALPA CLAUSE
Whether a Romalpa clause could be regarded as effective to retain title in goods where they are absorbed into a construction or manufacturing process – whether a liquidated debt could be claimed where property had not yet passed.

GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY – CONTRACT OF GUARANTEE

where guarantee, for any moneys then or in the future payable, was executed by defendant – whether consideration for guarantee was past –whether guarantee given under duress

Civil Procedure Rules (UK), r 24(4)
Supreme Court Rules
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 292,

Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 588.
Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd [1981] 1 Ch 25
Foodco Management Pty Ltd & Anor v Go My Travel Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 291
Ledger v Cleveland Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 269.
McPhee v Zarb [2002] QSC 004.
Style Finnish (Qld) Pty Ltd v Abloy Security Pty Limited [1994] 2 Qd R 203.
Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 3) [2001] 2 All ER 513

COUNSEL:

Mr Linklater-Steele for the plaintiff
Mr Byrne for the first and second defendants
Mr Roney for the third defendant

SOLICITORS:

Carter Newell Lawyers for the applicant
Hawthorn Cuppaidge and Badgery for the first and second defendants
Gadens Lawyers for the third defendant

Application for summary judgment

The applicant plaintiff seeks judgment against the first and second defendants under r 292 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for what it says is a liquidated debt in the amount of $265,231.37 arising out of the supply of building materials. The second defendant, Peter Dance, is a director of the first defendant Casaron Pty Ltd, the name of which was previously PPP (Qld) Pty Ltd. On 12 March 1998 Mr Dance, on behalf of the company, completed an application for commercial credit which was furnished to the plaintiff. In consideration of the plaintiff’s agreement to supply goods on credit to the first defendant he also executed a deed of guarantee dated 18 December…

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 CSR Limited v Casaron Pty Ltd 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 21
Decision Date: 15 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CSR Limited brought an action against Casaron Pty Ltd seeking summary judgment for a debt of $298,664.22, which arose from the sale of building materials. The defendants disputed the debt, raising issues regarding the transfer of property in the goods and the validity of the guarantee provided. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues were whether the defendants had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim and whether a Romalpa clause could be effective in retaining title over goods that were integrated into a construction process. Additionally, the court had to determine if a debt could be claimed as liquidated when property in the goods had not yet transferred and whether the guarantee was validly executed and supported by consideration.

The court found that the Romalpa clause was ineffective as the goods were substantially incorporated into the construction process, thus the property in the goods had passed to the buyers. Given that the property had transferred, the plaintiff was entitled to claim the debt as liquidated. The guarantee provided by the defendants was also deemed valid, as the court found that it was not executed under duress and that the guarantee applied to any future debts, including the one in question.

The court granted judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the amount of $298,664.22. However, the application for judgment against the second defendant was dismissed due to insufficient evidence presented to establish the second defendant's liability.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the amount of $298,664.22.

Application for judgment against the second defendant dismissed.

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:	CSR Limited v Casaron Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] QSC 021
PARTIES:	CSR LIMITED (ACN 000 001 276) (plaintiff) v CASARON PTY LTD (ACN 077 155 429) (first defendant) PETER JOHN DANCE (second defendant) ELIZABETH ANN DANCE (third defendan)
FILE NO/S:	S 6708 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 February 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2002
JUDGE:	Holmes J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the amount of $298,664.22. Application for judgment against the second defendant dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – SUMMARY JUDGMENT Where plaintiff seeks summary judgment against the defendants for a liquidated debt arising out of the supply of building material – whether the defendant had a real prospect of successfully defending all or a part of the plaintiff’s claim. SALE OF GOODS – PASSING OF PROPERTY AND RISK – ROMALPA CLAUSE Whether a Romalpa clause could be regarded as effective to retain title in goods where they are absorbed into a construction or manufacturing process – whether a liquidated debt could be claimed where property had not yet passed. GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY – CONTRACT OF GUARANTEE where guarantee, for any moneys then or in the future payable, was executed by defendant – whether consideration for guarantee was past –whether guarantee given under duress Civil Procedure Rules (UK), r 24(4) Supreme Court Rules Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 292, Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 588. Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd [1981] 1 Ch 25 Foodco Management Pty Ltd & Anor v Go My Travel Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 291 Ledger v Cleveland Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 269. McPhee v Zarb [2002] QSC 004. Style Finnish (Qld) Pty Ltd v Abloy Security Pty Limited [1994] 2 Qd R 203. Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 3) [2001] 2 All ER 513
COUNSEL:	Mr Linklater-Steele for the plaintiff Mr Byrne for the first and second defendants Mr Roney for the third defendant
SOLICITORS:	Carter Newell Lawyers for the applicant Hawthorn Cuppaidge and Badgery for the first and second defendants Gadens Lawyers for the third defendant