Dovedeen Pty Ltd v Maund

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:           

Dovedeen Pty Ltd v Maund & anor [2020] QDC 238

PARTIES:

DOVEDEEN PTY LTD

(Plaintiff)

v

RONALD EARLE MAUND

(First Defendant)

AND

KAREN-LEE MAUND

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO:

16 of 2017

DIVISION:

Civil  

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Toowoomba District Court

DELIVERED ON:

22 September 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20, 21 and 22 July 2020

JUDGE:

Porter QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2.   Judgment is entered for the Defendants’ on their counterclaim in the amount of $132,000.

3.   The parties file and serve submissions of not more than 4 pages and any supporting affidavits on the questions of interest and costs by Friday 2 October 2020.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – where the plaintiff company was involved in the business of owning and breeding thoroughbred race horses – where the defendants were trainers – where the plaintiff company entered into an agreement with the defendants for the purchase of six brood mares for $150,000 and for the defendants to care for them  – whether and to what extent the “care” extended to the servicing of the brood mares with stallions – where the plaintiff alleges the defendant serviced a particular mare with a particular stallion without the defendant’s consent or knowledge – where the particular stallion was alleged to be an inferior stallion – whether the servicing by the alleged inferior stallion resulted in a substantial decrease in value of the brood mare – whether the servicing of the alleged inferior stallion without the defendant’s consent or knowledge constituted a breach of the contract – where the defendants claim fees for care of the mares until their disposal – where the plaintiff alleged that the contract was terminated by notice – whether the defendants are entitled to payment of monthly fees under the contract.

CASES:

Crawford Fitting Co v Sydney Valve & Fittings Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 438

R v Foley [2000] 1 Qd R 290

Rees v Bailey Aluminium Products Pty Ltd (2008) 21 VR 478

Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd v Ensham Resources Pty Ltd [2006] 2 Qd R 14

COUNSEL:

D Edwards (direct-access) for the Plaintiff

Defendants self-represented

SOLICITORS:

D Edwards (direct-access) for the Plaintiff
Defendants self-represented

Summary

1. The plaintiff company (Dovedeen) was involved in the business of owning and breeding thoroughbred race horses.  In June 2012, it bought six brood mares for $150,000 from persons related to the defendants and entered into a contract with the defendants for their care.  The defendants are horse trainers.  The male defendant, Mr Maund, arranged for the mares subsequently to be covered by a stallion called Triumphant Choice on a number of occasions. 

2. Dovedeen alleged that the covering of the mares by that stallion required its consent and that it did not consent.  Dovedeen alleged that Triumphant Choice was a poorly bred stallion and that the consequence was that the mares became worth only $2000.  The…