Lade & Co P/L v Black

Case

[2005] QSC 325

9 November 2005


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Lade and Co P/L v Black [2005] QSC 325 [2005] QSC 325 9 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lade & Co P/L v Black involves a dispute between the plaintiffs, Lade & Co P/L, and the defendant, Black, concerning the breach of an undertaking given by the defendant to the court. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the defendant had breached the undertaking by failing to prevent cattle from straying onto lands owned by the plaintiffs. Additionally, they sought an order that the defendant be dealt with for contempt and compensation for the breach of the undertakings. In contrast, the defendant sought an order that he be released from the undertaking given.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had indeed breached the undertaking by failing to prevent cattle from straying onto the plaintiffs' property, and if so, what the appropriate remedy should be. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the breach, the terms of the undertaking, and the consequences of such a breach. The court also needed to determine if the defendant's application to be relieved of the undertaking should be granted.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the defendant had breached the undertaking by failing to prevent cattle from straying onto the plaintiffs' property. The court considered the precedents, including Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Phillip Morris Inc and Anor, Evenco Pty Ltd v Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, Gilbert v Gilbert, S & M Motor Repairs Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil, Stancomb v Trowbridge Urban District Council, and Whitham v Holloway, which guided the interpretation of the breach and the appropriate remedy. The court dismissed the defendant's application to be relieved from the undertaking and ordered him to be fined $500 with two months to pay, as well as to pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed.

The court's final orders were that the defendant be fined $500 with two months to pay, the defendant's application to be relieved of the undertaking be dismissed, and the defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Litigation & Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Abuse of Process

  • Contempt of Court

  • Compensatory Damages

  • Injunction

  • Res Judicata

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
Norman v Smith [2014] QDC 4

Cases Citing This Decision

6

Norman v Smith [2014] QDC 4
Lade & Co Pty Ltd v Black [2006] QCA 294
Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

2

Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3
Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39