Johnston v Parchert - [2004] QDC 179

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Johnston v Parchert & Anor [2004] QDC 179

PARTIES:

Brian Henry Johnston (Plaintiff)

V

Robert Charles Parchert (First Defendant)

&

Caroline Margaret Parchert (Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

2748/03

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11^th of June 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26^th & 27^th of May 2004, 7^th of June 2004.

JUDGE:

Forde DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed.

2.   It is ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the first and second defendant to be assessed on the standard basis.

3.   The counter-claim is dismissed.

4.   It is ordered that the first and second defendants do pay the costs of the plaintiff of the counter-claim to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT – JOINT VENTURE – Conduct of the parties – ratification not established – Caveat – without reasonable cause – loss and damage – estoppel

Land Title Act 1994. s130.

Brown v Brown (1905) 5 SR (NSW) 146.

City Bank of Sydney v McLaughlin (1910) 9 CLR 615.

Ocean Dynamic [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 88.

Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co v Eyre (1883) 11 QBD 674.

Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 3) (1970) Ch. 506.

COUNSEL:

Mr P Kronberg for the Plaintiff

Mr F Forde for the Defendants

SOLICITORS:

Porter Davies for the Plaintiff

Nicholson’s Solicitors for the Defendants

Introduction

The plaintiff, Brian Henry Johnston, entered into a contract dated 28 May 2002 to purchase a property situate at 662 Grieve Road, Rochedale (the “subject property”). That contract was subject to a special condition requiring “satisfactory settlement of the sale” of the plaintiff’s property situate at 21 Mayda Street, Shailer Park on or before 14 June 2002.[1] By letter dated 5 July 2002, the solicitors for the plaintiff terminated the said contract as the special condition could not be met.[2]
[1] (Exhibit 1)
[2] (Exhibit 4)

It soon became obvious that the Mayda Street property would not sell as provided for in the contract and so the plaintiff entered into a second contract with the vendors, Mr. and Mrs. Hook.[3] The second contract was subject to finance with the date to obtain finance being 5^th August 2002. In the meantime, the plaintiff was negotiating separately with two friends Mr. John Kreiscbergs and Mr. Paul Dakin in relation to a joint venture to purchase and renovate the subject property. The plaintiff did an estimate report called a Take-out Sheet to cost the renovation.[4] A summary of the cost of the restoration is to be found in Exhibit 3 and the estimate was $165,221.55.
[3] (Exhibit 5)
[4] (Exhibit 2)

On 5 August the solicitors for the plaintiff confirmed that the date for the approval of finance was to be extended to 9 August 2002 on certain conditions.[5] The settlement date was altered to 27 August 2002. Also, it was suggested that another person may purchase the property and a…

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.

Continue reading Johnston v Parchert

Details

AGLC: Johnston v Parchert [2004] QDC 179
Case: [2004] QDC 179
Decision Date: 11th of June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Johnston v Parchert was heard and decided. The plaintiff, Johnston, sought to recover damages and enforce a joint venture agreement with the defendants, Parchert and another. The defendants contested the claims and raised a counter-claim, which Johnston also disputed.

The court was tasked with determining whether the joint venture agreement was binding on the parties and if the plaintiff was entitled to damages or any other relief. A critical issue was whether the defendants' actions, particularly their failure to ratify certain conduct, amounted to a breach of the joint venture agreement. Additionally, the court had to consider the validity of a caveat lodged by the defendants and whether it was done without reasonable cause, potentially leading to estoppel.

The court found that the conduct of the parties did not establish a binding joint venture agreement. The defendants' failure to ratify certain actions did not breach the agreement. The court also held that the caveat was lodged without reasonable cause, but this did not result in estoppel against the defendants. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and the counter-claim. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs, while the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs related to the counter-claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed.

2. It is ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the first and second defendant to be assessed on the standard basis.

3. The counter-claim is dismissed.

4. It is ordered that the first and second defendants do pay the costs of the plaintiff of the counter-claim to be assessed on 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:	Johnston v Parchert & Anor [2004] QDC 179
PARTIES:	Brian Henry Johnston (Plaintiff) V Robert Charles Parchert (First Defendant) & Caroline Margaret Parchert (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	2748/03
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11^th of June 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26^th & 27^th of May 2004, 7^th of June 2004.
JUDGE:	Forde DCJ
ORDER:	1. The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed. 2. It is ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the first and second defendant to be assessed on the standard basis. 3. The counter-claim is dismissed. 4. It is ordered that the first and second defendants do pay the costs of the plaintiff of the counter-claim to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT – JOINT VENTURE – Conduct of the parties – ratification not established – Caveat – without reasonable cause – loss and damage – estoppel Land Title Act 1994. s130. Brown v Brown (1905) 5 SR (NSW) 146. City Bank of Sydney v McLaughlin (1910) 9 CLR 615. Ocean Dynamic [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 88. Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co v Eyre (1883) 11 QBD 674. Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 3) (1970) Ch. 506.
COUNSEL:	Mr P Kronberg for the Plaintiff Mr F Forde for the Defendants
SOLICITORS:	Porter Davies for the Plaintiff Nicholson’s Solicitors for the Defendants