Irene Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd

[2013] HCASL 2

IRENE CORONIS

v

JILT PTY LTD & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 2
B36/2012

1. The applicant commenced proceedings in the District Court of Queensland against the respondents.  The proceedings arose out of her sale of certain business premises to the first respondent.  The second respondent was, at all relevant times, a director of the first respondent. The applicant claimed, inter alia, that the respondents were in breach of a collateral oral contract which allowed her to occupy the premises for 12 months after settlement rent free, with an option for her to repurchase the property for the sale price less outlays after three years.  She also sought to bring an action in malicious prosecution against the second respondent on the basis of his complaint to police that she had stolen fixtures from the premises.

2. The District Court (Harrison DCJ) rejected all these claims.

3. The Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and Wilson AJA) dismissed the applicant's appeal.  That Court was unanimous save that Chesterman JA had a reservation about whether the reasoning of the trial judge in ordering that the trial proceed without a jury was correct.  The majority thought it was not.  His Honour thought it was.  He thought also that there was another power to refuse a jury trial.  He further considered that there was an additional independent reason for refusing a jury trial – a failure to pay the prescribed fee.  He considered that even if the order dispensing with the jury was erroneous, the only remedy was an order for a new trial.  That order could not be made unless the initial order had occasioned injustice.  In view of the fairness of the trial and the fact that the applicant's claims were tried and dealt with on their legal merits, the applicant had suffered no injustice, in Chesterman JA's opinion.

4. The papers filed by the applicant in support of her application for special leave to appeal concentrate substantially on factual analysis.  They do not demonstrate any arguable error in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal.

5. The application must be dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
26 February 2013 V.M. Bell