| COURT OF APPEAL | [2005] QCA 71 |
| WILLIAMS JA | |
| Appeal No 11000 of 2004 | |
| JOHN LABAJ | Appellant/Applicant |
| and | |
| LOLLO PLUMBING PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) | First Respondent |
| and | |
| IAN DAVID JESSUP OF JESSUP & PARTNERS, | Second Respondent |
| FIRST RESPONDENT'S ADMINISTRATOR | |
| BRISBANE ..DATE 18/03/2005 | |
| ORDER |
WILLIAMS JA: In the circumstances I will order that appeal
number 11000 of 2004 be set down for hearing on Wednesday the
23rd of March 2005.
I further order the Registry prepare a record book containing the material that was before the primary Court.
...
1
WILLIAMS JA: The order is costs reserved.
There will be an order as per the draft which I have initialled.
-----
2 ORDER
Details
- AGLC
- Labaj v Lollo Plumbing Pty Ltd (in liq) [2005] QCA 71
- Case
- [2005] QCA 71
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
John Labaj, the appellant, filed an appeal against the decision of the first respondent, Lollo Plumbing Pty Ltd, in liquidation, and the second respondent, Ian David Jessup of Jessup & Partners, concerning a dispute over the distribution of assets in the liquidation of Lollo Plumbing Pty Ltd. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, where Williams JA presided. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to an equitable interest in certain assets of the liquidated company. This issue arose from an earlier decision where the appellant claimed that he had an entitlement to an equitable interest in the assets of Lollo Plumbing Pty Ltd based on an oral agreement with the company's director, Ian David Jessup.
The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine if there was a valid oral agreement that would confer an equitable interest on the appellant. Williams JA reviewed the evidence regarding the oral agreement, the conduct of the parties, and the applicable legal principles. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of an oral agreement conferring an equitable interest on the appellant. The court found that the appellant's claim was not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and therefore, he was not entitled to an equitable interest in the assets of the liquidated company. The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to substantiate the appellant's claim.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the costs of the appeal be reserved pending the outcome of further proceedings. The court also directed the Registry to prepare a record book containing the material that was before the primary court. The final order was that the appeal number 11000 of 2004 be set down for hearing on a specified date, and the costs of the appeal were to be reserved.
The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine if there was a valid oral agreement that would confer an equitable interest on the appellant. Williams JA reviewed the evidence regarding the oral agreement, the conduct of the parties, and the applicable legal principles. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of an oral agreement conferring an equitable interest on the appellant. The court found that the appellant's claim was not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and therefore, he was not entitled to an equitable interest in the assets of the liquidated company. The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to substantiate the appellant's claim.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the costs of the appeal be reserved pending the outcome of further proceedings. The court also directed the Registry to prepare a record book containing the material that was before the primary court. The final order was that the appeal number 11000 of 2004 be set down for hearing on a specified date, and the costs of the appeal were to be reserved.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.