Hampton v Richardson

[2009] QCA 328

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hampton & Ors v Richardson [2009] QCA 328

PARTIES:

GEOFFREY ROBERT HAMPTON
(first plaintiff/applicant)
PAUL DAMIAN WYATT
(second plaintiff/not a party to the application)
ANTHONY LLOYD HERFORD
(third plaintiff/not a party to the application)
v
NEIL CHARLES RICHARDSON
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6696 of 2009
DC No 1473 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 October 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 October 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane and Muir JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal refused

2.   Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – FRAUD AND DECEIT – where applicant commenced proceedings for breach of trust almost two decades after alleged incident – where respondent pleaded statutory bar in defence below – where primary judge found applicant raised claim of fraud in reply to avoid statutory bar – where primary judge found applicant precluded by laches from bringing action – whether leave to appeal should be granted

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 68, s 83,
s 118
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 27
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293

Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457; [1998] HCA 66, cited
Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878) 3 App Cas 1218, cited
Hampton & Ors v Richardson [2009] QDC 139, affirmed
Smith v Woodward [2009] QCA 119, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

1. McMURDO P: I agree with Keane JA's reasons for refusing the applicant, Geoffrey Robert Hampton, leave to appeal under s 118(3) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld).

1. The Court invited Mr Hampton to address his strongest arguments as to why he should be given leave to appeal from the primary judge's order entering judgment for the respondent, Neil Charles Richardson.  Mr Hampton raised the following matters, in addition to those dealt with by Keane JA. 

1. He first contended that his claim was for more than $250,000 once interest was taken into account and that therefore the District Court judge did not have jurisdiction to make any orders. That contention is nonsensical for two reasons. First, Mr Hampton brought his claim in the District Court and did not apply to have it transferred to the Supreme Court under s 83 District Court of Queensland Act. He can hardly complain about the court's jurisdiction in those circumstances. It is also inconsistent with s 68(3)(c) District Court of Queensland Act which states that:

"in any case where it is necessary to determine whether…