Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd

Case [2023] QSC 15

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Goldsmith & Anor v AMP Life Ltd [2023] QSC 15
PARTIES:

AMP LIFE LTD CAN 079 300 379

(Applicant/Defendant)

v

ANDREW DAVID GOLDSMITH

(First Respondent/Plaintiff)

JANNE ELIZABETH TIPPETT

(Second Respondent/Plaintiff))
FILENO: BS 7538 of 2022
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Interlocutory application
ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVEREDON: 17 February 2023
DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane
HEARINGDATE: 4 October 2022
JUDGE: Crowley J
ORDERS:

1.       The Defendant has leave to file and proceed with the application filed on 4 August 2022.

2.       The claim filed by the Plaintiffs on 28 June 2022 is permanently stayed.

3.       The Plaintiffs are to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:

Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 176

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 10
Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld), s 42, s 43
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 16, r 24, r
171

Brocx v Hughes (2010) 41 WAR 84; [2010] WASCA 57, cited General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69, cited

Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd (2021) 7 QR 113; [2021] QCA 20, cited

Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd [2020] QDC 140, cited

Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd [2021] HCASL 133, cited Goldsmith v AMP Life Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of Queensland, Daubney J, 16 September 2021), cited
Goldsmith v AMP Life Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of Queensland, Wilson J, 30 May 2022), cited

Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529, cited

Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516; [1998] HCA 27, cited

Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68;

[1985] HCA 28, cited
PNJ v The Queen (2009) 252 ALR 612; [2009] HCA 6, cited
Re Cameron [1996] 2 Qd R 218; [1996] QCA 037, cited Sheraz Pty Ltd v Vegas Enterprises Pty Ltd (2015) 48 WAR 93; [2015] WASCA 4, cited
Tomlinson v Ramsey (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28, cited
Walton v Gardiner (1973) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77, cited
Western Australia v Cunningham (No 2) [2017] WASCA 197, cited

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS –

where the dispute between the parties involves leases entered into over a decade ago – where the Court of Appeal held a six- year limitation period applied in respect of some of the leases – where the Plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court in 2018, but did not take steps to serve the claim on the Defendant until 2022 – where the Plaintiffs repeatedly sought to renew the claim on the basis the six-year limitation period was about to expire – where the claim was renewed three times – where the Supreme Court set aside the renewal of the claim and dismissed the proceeding – where…

Continue reading Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd [2023] QSC 15
Case
[2023] QSC 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd involves a dispute over the ownership of a property located in Queensland. The plaintiffs, Goldsmith, sought to claim ownership of the property against the defendant, AMP Life Ltd, which had registered itself as the owner. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's registration of the property was invalid due to non-compliance with certain legislative requirements.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's registration of the property was valid under the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) and whether the plaintiffs' claim was statute-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The court also considered whether the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) applied to the dispute and whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the claim.

The court found that the defendant's registration of the property was valid, as it complied with the requirements of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld). The court also found that the plaintiffs' claim was statute-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), as they had not brought the claim within the relevant time period. The court held that the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) did not apply to the dispute, and that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the claim. As a result, the court permanently stayed the plaintiffs' claim and ordered them to pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.

In summary, the court found in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs in this dispute over the ownership of a property in Queensland. The court's decision was based on a range of legal issues, including the validity of the defendant's registration of the property, the application of statute of limitations, and the standing of the plaintiffs to bring the claim. The court's orders permanently stayed the plaintiffs' claim and required them to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Defendant has leave to file and proceed with the application filed on 4 August 2022.

2. The claim filed by the Plaintiffs on 28 June 2022 is permanently stayed.

3. The Plaintiffs are to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.

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.