Firearm Distributors Pty Ltd v Carson

Case [2000] QSC 159

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Firearm Distributors P/L v Robert James Carson & Ors [2000] QSC 159
PARTIES:

FIREARM DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD
(ACN 001 380 454
(Plaintiff/Applicant)
v
ROBERT JAMES CARSON (DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION DIVISION, QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE)
(First Defendant)
AND
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S: No. 6883of 1999
No. 6885 of 1999
DELIVERED ON: 7 June 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 8, 9 May 2000
JUDGE: Chesterman J
ORDERS:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in action No 6883/99 for the sum of $665,000.00.

2. That the second defendant pay interest on the sum of $971,160.00 at 10 per cent per annum for the period 22 May 1998 to 7 June 1999 and interest at the same rate on the sum of $665,000.00 from 7 June 1999 until it is paid.

3.  That the first defendant’s decision of 7 May 1999 be set aside.
CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE – AGREEMENTS  CONTEMPLATING EXECUTION OF FORMAL DOCUMENT – WHETHER CONCLUDED CONTRACT - decision by first defendant to pay compensation to plaintiff – revocation of decision and  reassessment of compensation – whether legally binding contract between plaintiff and second defendant – whether condition that parties enter into a deed was merely a condition precedent to payment or a condition on which existence of agreement existed
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND & AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF DECISION – OTHER GROUNDS - whether first defendant functus officio after first decision made – whether second decision ultra vires  - whether power to make decisions affecting rights or entitlements only exercisable once

COUNSEL: D S Savage for the plaintiff/applicant
M D Hinson for the defendant/respondent
SOLICITORS:

Hemming & Hart for the plaintiff/applicant
Queensland Police Service for the defendant/respondent

Acts Interpretation Act ss 23, 24AA, 4
Judicial Review Act s 30
London Government Act 1899
Police Service Administration Act 1990 s 4.10
War Damage Act s 30
Weapons Act 1990 s 179
Weapons Regulations 1996 r 71

Callisher v Bischoffscheim [1870] LR 5 QB 449
Export Development & Grants Board v EMI (Australia) Ltd (1985) 61 ALR 115
Irvine v Elnon (1806) 8 East 53
Livingstone v Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors of the City of Westminster [1904] 2 KB 109
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Miles v New Zealand Alford Estate Co [1885] 32 Ch D 266
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic (1990) 21 FCR 193
Mordue v Palmer [1870] 6 LR Ch App 22
Nelungaloo Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1948) 75 CLR 495
Newton, Bellamy and Wolfe v SGIO [1986] 1 Qd R 431
Re 56 Denton Road Twickenham [1953] 1 Ch 51
Reg v Tan [1977] AC 650
Rootkin v Kent County Council [1981] 1 WLR 1186

  1. CHESTERMAN J:  Firearm Distributors Pty Ltd (“the plaintiff”) is the plaintiff in an action brought against Robert Carson and the State of Queensland (“the State”), and the applicant for the statutory review…

Continue reading Firearm Distributors Pty Ltd v Carson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Firearm Distributors Pty Ltd v Carson [2000] QSC 159
Case
[2000] QSC 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Firearm Distributors Pty Ltd sought judicial review of decisions made by the second defendant, as the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General of Queensland. The company claimed that the second defendant's decision to pay compensation was legally binding and that the condition precedent to payment was met when the second defendant agreed to pay compensation. The first defendant, who was the Minister at the time, had decided to pay compensation, but this decision was later revoked and reassessed. Firearm Distributors contended that the second defendant's reassessment was legally flawed.

The court had to determine whether the agreement between the parties was legally binding and whether the condition that the parties enter into a deed was a condition precedent to payment or a condition on which the existence of the agreement depended. The court also had to determine whether the first defendant was functus officio after the first decision and whether the second defendant's decision to reassess was ultra vires.

The court found that the agreement between the parties was legally binding and that the condition that the parties enter into a deed was a condition precedent to payment. The court also found that the first defendant was not functus officio after the first decision, and the second defendant's decision to reassess was not ultra vires. The court concluded that the second defendant's decision to reassess was unlawful and set it aside. The court also awarded judgment in favour of Firearm Distributors Pty Ltd against the second defendant for the sum of $665,000.00, along with interest.

The court ordered that the second defendant pay interest on the sum of $971,160.00 at 10 per cent per annum for the period 22 May 1998 to 7 June 1999, and interest at the same rate on the sum of $665,000.00 from 7 June 1999 until it is paid. The court also set aside the first defendant's decision of 7 May 1999.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in action No 6883/99 for the sum of $665,000.00.

2. That the second defendant pay interest on the sum of $971,160.00 at 10 per cent per annum for the period 22 May 1998 to 7 June 1999 and interest at the same rate on the sum of $665,000.00 from 7 June 1999 until it is paid.

3. That the first defendant’s decision of 7 May 1999 be set aside.

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.