Francis v Whatson

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

[1993] QCA 388

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 61 of 1993

Brisbane

[Whatson v. Francis, Barnes]

[Porter v. Francis, Barnes]

BETWEEN

STEPHEN NORMAN RICHARDS

Plaintiff

and

BLAIR FRANCIS

First Respondent/Defendant

and

IAN HAROLD BARNES

Respondent/First Third Party

and

KEITH PORTER

Second Third Party

and

WINSTON WILLIAM WHATSON

Appellant/Third Third Party

Appeal No. 62 of 1993

BETWEEN

STEPHEN NORMAN RICHARDS

Plaintiff

and

BLAIR FRANCIS

First Respondent/Defendant

and

IAN HAROLD BARNES

Respondent/First Third Party

and

KEITH PORTER

Appellant/Second Third Party

and

WINSTON WILLIAM WHATSON

Third Third Party ____________________________________________________________ _____

Mr Justice Pincus Mr Justice Davies Mr Justice Moynihan

____________________________________________________________

_____

Judgment delivered 12/10/93

Joint reasons for judgment of Pincus J.A. and Moynihan S.J.A., Davies J.A. separate - all concurring as to the orders made.

____________________________________________________________

_____

IN APPEAL NO. 61 OF 1993, APPEAL ALLOWED.
ORDER NOS. 4 AND 6 MADE IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS AND DATED 24 MARCH 1993 SET ASIDE. IN LIEU
THEREOF, ORDER THAT PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY FRANCIS AGAINST
WHATSON IN THE DISTRICT COURT BE DISMISSED.
RESPONDENT FRANCIS TO PAY APPELLANT WHATSON'S COSTS OF THE
APPEAL, TO BE TAXED.
RESPONDENT FRANCIS TO PAY APPELLANT WHATSON'S COSTS OF THE

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, TO BE TAXED.

IN APPEAL NO. 62 OF 1993, APPEAL DISMISSED.
APPELLANT PORTER TO PAY RESPONDENT FRANCIS' COSTS OF THE
APPEAL, TO BE TAXED.
____________________________________________________________

_____

CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - Duty of care - representations made by yacht broker as to title of stolen boat - boat sold after representations made - whether broker owed duty of care to purchaser - whether duty breached - whether purchaser entitled to indemnity by broker.
LIMITATION - whether action for negligence and indemnity against Whatson
statute-barred - whether cause of action arose on original sale of boat to Francis or on seizure of the boat by police from second purchaser or on judgment being given establishing the defendant's liability to the plaintiff.
Counsel:	Mr K Fleming QC with him Mr K Murphy for the appellant/third third party.
Mr J Douglas QC with him Mr L A Stephens for the first respondent/defendant and the second respondent/first third party.
Mr B Holloway for the appellant/second third party.
Solicitors:	B J Holloway & Co. for the appellant/third third party.
S J Hockey for the first respondent/ defendant and the second respondent/first third party.
B J Holloway & Co. for the appellant/second third party.
Hearing Date:	02/08/93.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 61 of 1993.

Brisbane

Before	Pincus J.A. Davies J.A. Moynihan J.
BETWEEN

STEPHEN NORMAN RICHARDS

Plaintiff

and

BLAIR FRANCIS

First Respondent/Defendant

and

IAN HAROLD BARNES

Respondent/First Third Party

and

KEITH PORTER

Second Third Party

and

WINSTON WILLIAM WHATSON

Appellant/Third Third Party

Appeal No. 62 of 1993

BETWEEN

STEPHEN NORMAN RICHARDS

Plaintiff

and

BLAIR FRANCIS

First Respondent/Defendant

and

IAN HAROLD BARNES

Respondent/First Third Party

and

KEITH PORTER

Appellant/Second Third Party

and

WINSTON WILLIAM WHATSON

Third Third Party

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF

PINCUS J.A. AND MOYNIHAN S.J.A.

Judgment…