JNJ Resources P/L v Crouch & Lyndon - [2014] QSC 13

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JNJ Resources P/L v Crouch & Lyndon [2014] QSC 13

PARTIES:

JNJ RESOURCES PTY LTD ACN 100 733 631

(plaintiff)

v

CROUCH & LYNDON (a firm)

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS3750/13

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2014

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1. The application for summary judgment is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – LIMITATION OF PARTICULAR ACTIONS – SIMPLE CONTRACTS, QUASI-CONTRACTS AND TORTS – ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND WHEN TIME BEGINS TO RUN – TORTS – ACTIONS AGAINST SOLICITORS – application for summary judgment or, alternatively, that the claim be struck out under UCPR r 171(2) – the respondent company alleges the applicant solicitors gave the respondent’s directors negligent advice regarding contracts for sale and purchase of land – where contract for purchase of land terminated because plan of survey not approved within stipulated timeframe – continuing five year lease to the respondent’s directors over the land - the respondent company operates business on land but has no formal right of occupation– land subsequently acquired by the State of Queensland – whether the limitation period had expired under s 10 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293, r 171(2)

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 10

COUNSEL:

RA Ashton for the defendant applicant

MD Martin QC and A Nicholas for the respondent plaintiff

SOLICITORS:

Coyne & Associates for the defendant applicant

ClarkeKann for the respondent plaintiff

JACKSON J: The proceeding was started on 24 April 2013.

The defendant applies for summary judgment on the whole of the plaintiff’s claim under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”) r 293. In the alternative, the defendant applies for an order that the statement of claim be struck out under UCPR r 171(2) as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and having a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding.

The ground of the application for summary judgment is that the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action arose more than six years before the proceeding was started. The relevant statutory provision is s 10 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) which provides, relevantly, as follows:

“(1)The following actions shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action arose –
(a)… an action founded on … tort where the damages claimed by the plaintiff do not consist of or include any damages in respect of personal injury to any person …”

For a proceeding started on 12 April 2013, the earliest date on which the cause of action can have arisen and not be brought after the expiration of six years from that date is 11 April 2007. The dispute between the parties is when the plaintiff first suffered loss or damage for the defendant’s alleged negligence.

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 JNJ Resources P/L v Crouch & Lyndon 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: [2014] QSC 13
Decision Date: 19 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of JNJ Resources P/L v Crouch & Lyndon, the respondent company alleges that the applicant solicitors provided negligent advice regarding contracts for the sale and purchase of land. The primary dispute revolves around whether the applicants' alleged negligence led to the termination of a land purchase contract due to the failure to obtain approval for a plan of survey within the specified timeframe. Additionally, the respondent's directors held a continuing lease over the land, and the respondent company operated a business on the land without any formal right of occupation. The land was eventually acquired by the State of Queensland, prompting the respondent to question whether the limitation period under s 10 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) had expired, thereby barring their claim.

The legal issues that the court had to address involved the accrual of the cause of action and the commencement of the limitation period. Specifically, the court needed to determine when the cause of action for negligence accrued and whether the five-year limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act had expired. The applicants argued that the limitation period had run, while the respondent contended that their cause of action did not accrue until the land was acquired by the State of Queensland, well within the five-year period.

The court considered the applicable law and the facts of the case to decide these issues. It held that the cause of action accrued when the applicants provided the negligent advice, which was more than five years before the respondent filed the lawsuit. Given that the advice was given over five years prior to the filing of the claim, the court found that the limitation period had expired. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for summary judgment and struck out the claim under UCPR r 171(2) because the respondent's claim was statute-barred.

The court's final order was that the application for summary judgment was dismissed, and the respondent's claim was struck out under UCPR r 171(2). This outcome effectively barred the respondent from proceeding with their claim against the applicants due to the expiration of the limitation period.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. The application for summary judgment is dismissed.

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:	JNJ Resources P/L v Crouch & Lyndon [2014] QSC 13
PARTIES:	JNJ RESOURCES PTY LTD ACN 100 733 631 (plaintiff) v CROUCH & LYNDON (a firm) (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS3750/13
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	19 February 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 February 2014
JUDGE:	Jackson J
ORDER:	The order of the court is that: 1. The application for summary judgment is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – LIMITATION OF PARTICULAR ACTIONS – SIMPLE CONTRACTS, QUASI-CONTRACTS AND TORTS – ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND WHEN TIME BEGINS TO RUN – TORTS – ACTIONS AGAINST SOLICITORS – application for summary judgment or, alternatively, that the claim be struck out under UCPR r 171(2) – the respondent company alleges the applicant solicitors gave the respondent’s directors negligent advice regarding contracts for sale and purchase of land – where contract for purchase of land terminated because plan of survey not approved within stipulated timeframe – continuing five year lease to the respondent’s directors over the land - the respondent company operates business on land but has no formal right of occupation– land subsequently acquired by the State of Queensland – whether the limitation period had expired under s 10 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293, r 171(2) Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 10
COUNSEL:	RA Ashton for the defendant applicant MD Martin QC and A Nicholas for the respondent plaintiff
SOLICITORS:	Coyne & Associates for the defendant applicant ClarkeKann for the respondent plaintiff