Jackwitz v Golden Circle Limited

[2000] QSC 331

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Jackwitz v Golden Circle Limited [2000] QSC 331
PARTIES:	TREVOR JOHN JACKWITZ and MARGARET BETTY JACKWITZ (applicants) v GOLDEN CIRCLE LIMITED (ACN 054 355 618) (respondent)
FILE NO:	7384 of 2000 (Brisbane Registry)
DIVISION:	Trial Division
DELIVERED ON:	25 September 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Application for decision without oral hearing
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	1.  Brisbane District Court Action No 1273 of 1998 be t ransferred to the Supreme Court at Brisbane. 2.  The costs of and incidental to the application be the parties' costs in the Supreme Court proceedings which are the result of the transfer. 3.  The costs of Brisbane District Court Action No 1273 of 1998 be the parties' costs in the Supreme Court proceedings which are the result of the transfer.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – TRANSFER OF ACTION FROM DISTRICT COURT TO SUPREME COURT
SOLICITORS:	O'Mara Patterson & Perrier for the applicants Carter Newell for the respondent

1. MULLINS J: On 25 August 2000 the applicants filed an originating application in this Court seeking that a decision be made without oral hearing to transfer Brisbane District Court Action No 1273 of 1998 to the Supreme Court at Brisbane pursuant to section 82 of the District Court Act 1967.

1. In the District Court Action the applicants allege that they are beetroot farmers and for many years grew beetroot upon their land which they sold to the respondent.  They allege that the respondent was responsible for superintending the growing of the crop and for harvesting the crop at the relevant time for which the defendant employed its own equipment.  They also allege that the respondent harvested at a date determined by its employees.  They allege that the respondent did not harvest the beetroot at appropriate times such that the crop was damaged by being left too long in the ground and one consequence of that was the contamination of the ground with various pathogens.  The applicants also allege that the pathogen contamination of the land was introduced by the respondent's harvesting equipment which was too heavy for use and such equipment was contaminated with pathogens from other farms. 

1. The applicants claim that their damages have therefore increased to include not just the value of one year's crop, but the value of many years' crops or the decrease in the capital value of the land consequent upon not being able to grow beetroot or other similar crops for the foreseeable future.  The applicants now have an expert's report which assesses damages at greater than the monetary limit of the District Court and the respondent has declined to extend the jurisdiction of the District Court. 

1. Although the respondent strenuously denies any liability to the applicants, it does agree that if the applicants succeed in their case, damages would exceed the jurisdiction of the District Court.  The respondent therefore consents to an order being made in the terms sought by applicant in the draft order which accompanied the originating application.

1. I am therefore satisfied that there is reasonable ground for supposing that if the applicants can establish their case, the remedy they seek is not available in the District Court.       

1. I therefore make the orders which are set out at the commencement of these reasons.