Goodman v Lorenzen

[2000] QCA 11

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Goodman v Lorenzen [2000] QCA 11

PARTIES:

HART TAVIL GOODMAN
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
PAULINE RAE LORENZEN
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3595 of 1999
DC No 127 of 1995

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 February 2000

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Thomas JA, Byrne J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.
Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the action, including the appeal, to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS - CLASSIFICATION - FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY - Whether an order for security for costs is interlocutory - Whether an order that an action be struck out is interlocutory

PROCEDURE - SECURITY FOR COSTS - Whether security for costs order had been obtained by fraud

EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - PROOF OF HANDWRITING AND SIGNATURE - OPINION EVIDENCE - Whether report was tendered as expert evidence or as part of inspection of property

District Court Act (Qld) 1968, s 118(3)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Qld) 1999, r 250, r 425(1), r 426(1), r 426(3), r 426(4)

Birkett v James [1978] AC 297, considered
Carr & Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 36, considered
Ex parte Britt [1987] 1 Qd R 221, considered
Ex parte Edwards [1989] 1 Qd R 139, considered
Hall v Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423, distinguished
Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23, considered
Kaats v Caelers [1966] Qd R 482, distinguished
La Grange v McAndrew (1879) 4 QBD 210, considered
Licul v Corney (1976) 50 ALJR 439, considered
Madden v Kirkegood Ellwood and Parties [1983] 1 Qd R 649, considered
R v Noud, ex parte MacNamara [1991] 2 Qd R 86, applied
Vale v Oppert (1877) 5 Ch D 633, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Mr W Cochrane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Marino Moller for the respondent

1. McPHERSON JA: This is an appeal, or more accurately an attempt to appeal, against a decision striking out an action instituted by plaint no 127 of 1995 issued out of the District Court at Cairns on 19 June 1995.  In it the plaintiff, who is the appellant in this Court, claimed a sum of $52,440.18 representing the total of amounts of various payments alleged to have been made as loans by means of cheques drawn in favour of the respondent defendant on dates between 1989 and 1993, together with damages for detinue or conversion of a diamond said to be worth $2,500 and certain books on art valued at $6,569. The plaintiff and defendant had formerly lived as art instructor and pupil until 1993. During that period, their property had to some extent become intermixed, and, with a view to separating or resolving their proprietary rights, they…