IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd - [2007] QSC 2

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

IVI Pty Ltd & Anor v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 002

PARTIES:

IVI PTY LTD (ACN 093 587 314)
(first plaintiff)
and
NORFOLK ESTATES PTY LTD (ACN 010 355 138)
(second plaintiff)
v
BAYCROWN PTY LTD (ACN 062 665 883)
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS3203 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

11 January 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 December 2006

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1.    The following parts of the defendant’s amended defence are struck out:

(a) paragraphs 5, 7(b) and (c), 12, 13(c), 14(c), 17(a), 17(c)(i) to (iii), 19, 21(b) to (d), 22(d) and (e), 23 and 24(a) and (b);

(b) the words ‘the defendant repeats paragraph 5 hereof’ and each occurrence of the word ‘proposed’ in paragraph 6;

(c)   the words ‘and otherwise refers to the facts and matters set out in paragraph 17(c)(iii)’ in paragraph 10;

(d) the words ‘if there was a contract’ in paragraph 18;

(e) the words ‘If the contract alleged was entered into’ in paragraph 21(a);

(f)   paragraphs 7(a) and (b), and 12, with leave to replead those paragraphs;

2.    the defendant is to pay the costs of the application to be assessed the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

ESTOPPEL – FORMER ADJUDICATION AND MATTERS OF RECORD OR QUASI OF RECORD – FORMER ADJUDICATION – JUDGMENT INTER PARTES – PARTIES – WHO MAY RELY ON – in an earlier action the first plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant – second plaintiff an undisclosed principal of the first plaintiff and not a party to the earlier action – issue estoppel – whether the second plaintiff is the first plaintiff’s privy who may rely on issue estoppels arising in favour of the first plaintiff against the defendant

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM – issue estoppel – defendant’s defence brings in issue an adjudication in an earlier proceeding – rules of pleading – adequacy of explanation for non-admissions in defence – whether parts of the defence should be struck-out because the defendant is estopped or has not adequately explained its non-admissions

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 166, r 292(2)

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, followed

IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 430, considered

IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 205, cited

IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2005] QSC 330, cited

IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 461, cited

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 589, cited

Ramsay v Pigram (1967) 118 CLR 271, followed

Siu Yin Kawn v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 2 AC 199, considered

Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (1992) 36 FCR 406, followed

Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (1993) 43…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] QSC 2
Decision Date: 11 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd, the parties were engaged in a legal dispute concerning issue estoppel and the application of former adjudications in the context of pleadings under the Supreme Court of Queensland's rules. The dispute centred on whether the second plaintiff, IVI Pty Ltd, could rely on an issue estoppel that arose in favour of the first plaintiff, who had previously obtained a judgment against the defendant, Baycrown Pty Ltd. The second plaintiff was not a party to the earlier action but was an undisclosed principal of the first plaintiff. The defendant argued that the second plaintiff could not rely on the earlier adjudication due to the lack of privity, and that parts of the defendant's amended defence should be struck out for not adequately explaining non-admissions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the second plaintiff, as the undisclosed principal of the first plaintiff, could be bound by an issue estoppel arising in the earlier adjudication in favour of the first plaintiff. The court also needed to determine the adequacy of the defendant's explanation for non-admissions in its defence, specifically whether certain parts of the defence should be struck out due to estoppel or lack of adequate explanation. The court examined the rules of pleading and the principles of estoppel in the context of the parties' relationship and the previous judgment.

In its decision, the court held that the second plaintiff could not rely on the issue estoppel because it was not a privy to the first plaintiff in the earlier adjudication. Consequently, the court ruled that certain parts of the defendant's amended defence were not adequately explained and should be struck out. The court also determined that the defendant was to pay the costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

The court's final orders included the striking out of specific paragraphs and words from the defendant's amended defence and the requirement for the defendant to pay the costs of the application. This decision underscored the importance of privity in the context of issue estoppel and the necessity for parties to adequately explain non-admissions in their pleadings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The following parts of the defendant’s amended defence are struck out:

(a) paragraphs 5, 7(b) and (c), 12, 13(c), 14(c), 17(a), 17(c)(i) to (iii), 19, 21(b) to (d), 22(d) and (e), 23 and 24(a) and (b);

(b) the words ‘the defendant repeats paragraph 5 hereof’ and each occurrence of the word ‘proposed’ in paragraph 6;

(d) the words ‘if there was a contract’ in paragraph 18;

(e) the words ‘If the contract alleged was entered into’ in paragraph 21(a);

(f) paragraphs 7(a) and (b), and 12, with leave to replead those paragraphs;

2. the defendant is to pay the costs of the application to be assessed the standard 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.

CITATION:	IVI Pty Ltd & Anor v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 002
PARTIES:	IVI PTY LTD (ACN 093 587 314) (first plaintiff) and NORFOLK ESTATES PTY LTD (ACN 010 355 138) (second plaintiff) v BAYCROWN PTY LTD (ACN 062 665 883) (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS3203 of 2005
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	11 January 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 December 2006
JUDGE:	Chesterman J
ORDER:	1. The following parts of the defendant’s amended defence are struck out: (a) paragraphs 5, 7(b) and (c), 12, 13(c), 14(c), 17(a), 17(c)(i) to (iii), 19, 21(b) to (d), 22(d) and (e), 23 and 24(a) and (b); (b) the words ‘the defendant repeats paragraph 5 hereof’ and each occurrence of the word ‘proposed’ in paragraph 6; (c) the words ‘and otherwise refers to the facts and matters set out in paragraph 17(c)(iii)’ in paragraph 10; (d) the words ‘if there was a contract’ in paragraph 18; (e) the words ‘If the contract alleged was entered into’ in paragraph 21(a); (f) paragraphs 7(a) and (b), and 12, with leave to replead those paragraphs; 2. the defendant is to pay the costs of the application to be assessed the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	ESTOPPEL – FORMER ADJUDICATION AND MATTERS OF RECORD OR QUASI OF RECORD – FORMER ADJUDICATION – JUDGMENT INTER PARTES – PARTIES – WHO MAY RELY ON – in an earlier action the first plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant – second plaintiff an undisclosed principal of the first plaintiff and not a party to the earlier action – issue estoppel – whether the second plaintiff is the first plaintiff’s privy who may rely on issue estoppels arising in favour of the first plaintiff against the defendant PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM – issue estoppel – defendant’s defence brings in issue an adjudication in an earlier proceeding – rules of pleading – adequacy of explanation for non-admissions in defence – whether parts of the defence should be struck-out because the defendant is estopped or has not adequately explained its non-admissions Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 166, r 292(2) Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, followed IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 430, considered IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 205, cited IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2005] QSC 330, cited IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 461, cited Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 589, cited Ramsay v Pigram (1967) 118 CLR 271, followed Siu Yin Kawn v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 2 AC 199, considered Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (1992) 36 FCR 406, followed Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (1993) 43…