Meadowcraft P/L and Munro v Prizmic - [2003] QCA 533

[2003] QCA 533

COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
CHESTERMAN J

MULLINS J

Appeal No 5606 of 2003

VOJMIR PRIZMIC and VINKA PRIZMIC	Plaintiffs/Respondents
and
MEADOWCROFT PTY LTD	First Defendant/First Appellant
and
CHRISTOPHER JOHN MUNRO	Second Defendant/Second Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 28/11/2003

JUDGMENT
28112003 T11-12/JJD24 M/T COA265/2003

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Mullins will deliver her reasons determined the summary judgment application in favour of the respondents, who were the plaintiffs in the proceeding against the appellants, who were the first and second defendants in the proceeding. The judgment was for the sum of $96,885.48 and for costs.

first.

The first appellant leased part of a building situated at 143 Scotts Street, Cairns, from Mr and Mrs Hartley, pursuant to the lease dated 5 April 2000, for a term of five years, which commenced on 1 February 2000. The lease was registered.

The lease also contained a guarantee and indemnity that was signed by the second appellant in respect of the obligations of the first appellant under the lease.

The respondents purchased the Scott Street property from property, on and from 13 July 2000.

According to the amended statement of claim, the first
appellant defaulted in payment of rent, as from the month of
March 2002 and defaulted in the payment of its prescribed
percentage of the outgoings under the lease. It was not in
28112003 T11-12/JJD24 M/T COA265/2003
dispute that the first appellant vacated the premises on 25
July 2002.

It was alleged in the amended statement of claim that on or about that date the first appellant repudiated the lease by abandoning the premises and that repudiation was accepted by

the respondents, who with the consent of the first appellant, re-entered into possession of the premises and terminated the lease.

The respondents, therefore, sought damages by reason of that abandonment and termination of the lease. The respondents were able to rent the premises to another tenant from 8 September 2002, at a lesser rental than was payable by the first appellant under the lease. The damages sought included a claim for the shortfall in the rent to be received by the respondents between 8 September 2002 and 31 January 2006.

The amended defence that was filed on 11 February 2003, was prepared by the second appellant. The appellants did have solicitors and counsel for the purpose of the summary judgment application. The appeal, however, was being pursued by the appellants without legal representation, until they recently engaged Mr Strachan of counsel directly to appear for them on the hearing of the appeal.

The defences that were raised in the amended defence, can be
summarised as:
28112003 T11-12/JJD24 M/T COA265/2003

JUDGMENT

(a)	the lease was invalid because it was obtained as a result of misrepresentations, undue influence and coercion by or under duress from, Mr and Mrs Hartley;
(b)	there were oral agreements to vary the terms of the lease between the respondents and the second appellant in July 2000, 31 January 2001, 28 May 2001, 27 February 2002 and 9 April…

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 Meadowcraft P/L and Munro v Prizmic 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: [2003] QCA 533
Decision Date: 28/11/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Meadowcraft P/L and Munro v Prizmic involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Meadowcraft P/L and Munro, and the defendants, Vojmir and Vinka Prizmic, regarding a lease of property at 143 Scotts Street, Cairns. The defendants, who were the original lessees, defaulted on their lease obligations, leading the plaintiffs to seek damages for the abandonment and termination of the lease. The primary judge granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding them $96,885.48 plus costs. The defendants appealed this decision.

The legal issues in this case centered around the validity of the lease and the enforceability of the alleged oral agreements that purportedly varied the lease terms. The defendants argued that the lease was obtained through misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion, duress, and that there were oral agreements to vary the lease terms which were unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The primary judge rejected these defences, finding that the lease was valid and that the alleged oral agreements were unenforceable as they lacked consideration and were not in writing as required by the lease.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's decision, finding that the defendants' arguments did not present a valid legal challenge to the plaintiffs' claim. The appeal grounds were based on a misunderstanding of the primary judge's approach to the summary judgment application, which did not involve making factual determinations but rather applying the law to the facts as pleaded. The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge correctly applied the relevant legal principles and that the defendants had no valid defence to the claim for damages.

The appeal was dismissed, and the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the appeal. The Court of Appeal concluded that the primary judge's decision was correct, and there was no basis for the defendants' claims of duress, undue influence, misrepresentation, or oral agreements to vary the lease terms.

Orders