Manbulloo Limited v Sacilotto - [2013] QDC 243

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Manbulloo Limited v Sacilotto & Ors [2013] QDC 243

PARTIES:

Manbulloo Limited

(Plaintiff)

V

Michael John Sacilotto and Angela Ellen Sacilotto

(First Defendants)

And

Keith Alexander Crawford and Christopher John Honey

(Second Defendants)

FILE NO:

D407 of 2012

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

01 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2013

JUDGE:

Durward SC DCJ

ORDERS:

1. The second defendant’s application for summary judgment against the plaintiff is refused.

2. The second defendant’s application to strike out parts of the plaintiff’s statement of claim is granted.

3. The plaintiff’s application for summary judgment against the first defendant is refused.

4. The plaintiff’s application to strike out the defence of the first defendant is refused.

5. The plaintiff’s application for leave to amend nunc pro tunc it’s statement of claim and to add against the second defendant acclaim in conversion is granted.

6. The plaintiff has leave to amend its statement of claim, to be filed and served within 14 days of this order.

7. I will hear the parties further as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION:
CASES:

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – CAUSES OF ACTION – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – application by second defendant – whether plaintiff has realistic prospects of succeeding on all or part of the claim.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – ADDITION OF CAUSE OF ACTION – whether grounds for addition of cause of action of conversion of property by sale of it – whether property are fixtures or are chattels – whether plaintiff has any equitable interest in the property – whether any interest is enforceable against second defendants who are receivers and managers.
LEASE – TERMINATION – NEW LEASE – CONTINUATION OF TERMS – whether first lease extinguished – whether second unregistered lease binds liquidator – priority of competing interests.

PROPERTY – FIXTURES – whether buried irrigation system a fixture – whether any evidence about affixation.

REDEIVERS & MANAGERS – powers of receiver – whether liable personally for alleged breach of duty – whether implication of liability to third party not party in liquidation inconsistent with conventional position of liquidator.

REAL PROPERTY – LEASE – clause conferring benefit of covenant binding purchaser of land from lessor – whether binds liquidator – whether lease extinguished and any interest of lessee subsists – whether legal or equitable interest and against whom enforceable.

PRACTICE & PRODEDURE – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – whether pleadings disclose a viable cause of action.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 5, 171, 292, 293;
Corporations Act 2001 ss 419, 419A.

General Steel IndustriesInc v Commisioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232; Bolton Properties Pty Ltd v JK Investments (Australia) Pty Ltd (2009) 2 Qd R 202; 3 Oceans Line Company Pty Ltd v Heyshott Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 39 ; ASIC v Letten & Ors (No 13) (2011) 86 ACSR 174; Barclay v…

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 Manbulloo Limited v Sacilotto 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: [2013] QDC 243
Decision Date: 01 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Manbulloo Limited v Sacilotto involved a complex dispute over property interests, lease continuation, and the rights and duties of receivers and managers. The primary issue before the court was the validity of the plaintiff's claims against the second defendant, specifically regarding the addition of a cause of action for conversion of property. The plaintiff sought to amend its statement of claim to include a claim of conversion against the second defendant, the receivers and managers of the property in question. The second defendant argued that the plaintiff had no realistic prospect of success on this claim, and sought to have parts of the plaintiff's statement of claim struck out. The court also considered whether the first lease had been extinguished by a second unregistered lease and whether any interest of the lessee continued to bind the liquidator.

The court determined that the second defendant's application for summary judgment was to be refused, as the plaintiff did have realistic prospects of succeeding on all or part of the claim, including the proposed cause of action for conversion. The court granted the second defendant's application to strike out certain parts of the plaintiff's statement of claim, but allowed the plaintiff to amend its statement of claim to include the conversion claim against the second defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had leave to amend its statement of claim, to be filed and served within 14 days of the order. The plaintiff's application for summary judgment against the first defendant was also refused, as was its application to strike out the first defendant's defence. The court reserved its decision on costs, indicating it would hear the parties further on that issue.

In summary, the court ruled that the plaintiff could proceed with its claim of conversion against the second defendant, but struck out certain parts of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to amend its statement of claim to include the conversion claim. The court did not grant summary judgment to either party and reserved its decision on costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The second defendant’s application for summary judgment against the plaintiff is refused.

2. The second defendant’s application to strike out parts of the plaintiff’s statement of claim is granted.

3. The plaintiff’s application for summary judgment against the first defendant is refused.

4. The plaintiff’s application to strike out the defence of the first defendant is refused.

5. The plaintiff’s application for leave to amend nunc pro tunc it’s statement of claim and to add against the second defendant acclaim in conversion is granted.

6. The plaintiff has leave to amend its statement of claim, to be filed and served within 14 days of this order.

7. I will hear the parties further as to costs.

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:	Manbulloo Limited v Sacilotto & Ors [2013] QDC 243
PARTIES:	Manbulloo Limited (Plaintiff) V Michael John Sacilotto and Angela Ellen Sacilotto (First Defendants) And Keith Alexander Crawford and Christopher John Honey (Second Defendants)
FILE NO:	D407 of 2012
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	01 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	19 April 2013
JUDGE:	Durward SC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The second defendant’s application for summary judgment against the plaintiff is refused. 2. The second defendant’s application to strike out parts of the plaintiff’s statement of claim is granted. 3. The plaintiff’s application for summary judgment against the first defendant is refused. 4. The plaintiff’s application to strike out the defence of the first defendant is refused. 5. The plaintiff’s application for leave to amend nunc pro tunc it’s statement of claim and to add against the second defendant acclaim in conversion is granted. 6. The plaintiff has leave to amend its statement of claim, to be filed and served within 14 days of this order. 7. I will hear the parties further as to costs.
CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION: CASES:	PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – CAUSES OF ACTION – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – application by second defendant – whether plaintiff has realistic prospects of succeeding on all or part of the claim. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – ADDITION OF CAUSE OF ACTION – whether grounds for addition of cause of action of conversion of property by sale of it – whether property are fixtures or are chattels – whether plaintiff has any equitable interest in the property – whether any interest is enforceable against second defendants who are receivers and managers. LEASE – TERMINATION – NEW LEASE – CONTINUATION OF TERMS – whether first lease extinguished – whether second unregistered lease binds liquidator – priority of competing interests. PROPERTY – FIXTURES – whether buried irrigation system a fixture – whether any evidence about affixation. REDEIVERS & MANAGERS – powers of receiver – whether liable personally for alleged breach of duty – whether implication of liability to third party not party in liquidation inconsistent with conventional position of liquidator. REAL PROPERTY – LEASE – clause conferring benefit of covenant binding purchaser of land from lessor – whether binds liquidator – whether lease extinguished and any interest of lessee subsists – whether legal or equitable interest and against whom enforceable. PRACTICE & PRODEDURE – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – whether pleadings disclose a viable cause of action. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 5, 171, 292, 293; Corporations Act 2001 ss 419, 419A. General Steel IndustriesInc v Commisioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232; Bolton Properties Pty Ltd v JK Investments (Australia) Pty Ltd (2009) 2 Qd R 202; 3 Oceans Line Company Pty Ltd v Heyshott Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 39 ; ASIC v Letten & Ors (No 13) (2011) 86 ACSR 174; Barclay v…