Monagle v Brown

[2008] QDC 165

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE FORDE

No 548 of 2008

BENEDICT JOHN MONAGLE	Appellant
and
NICOLA JANE BROWN	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 27/03/2008

ORDER
HIS HONOUR: This is an application to extend the time for an

appeal filed on the 12th of March 2008 which was some eight

months out of time.

On an application of this nature the onus is upon the

applicant to show, one, that there is some satisfactory	10
explanation for the delay and two, that there is some merit in
the appeal. See R v Tate (1999) 2 Queensland Reports 667 at
668.
The explanation given for the delay was that the applicant,	20
who appeals against the sentence by the learned magistrate, given on 13th of June 2007, was that the appeal papers were filled in and given to a unit officer at the prison and she indicated they would be faxed to Legal Aid which they were
not. Subsequent inquiries were made and a second form was	30
filled in and the applicant was told the Courts would not accept them, so they were then sent to a Ms Holman at Legal Aid. These events occurred over the relevant period of time.
In relation to the appeal itself, as appears from the exhibit	40
handed up to me which was the warrant and an attachment,
Exhibit 4, the applicant is to serve a total of some five
years three months and five days commencing on 30th September
2004.
50

The applicant had been sentenced on the 30th of June 2004 to 18 months' imprisonment, he had served 98 days, with three years' imprisonment on the 5th of July 2005 for robbery with violence and wilful damage and then before the learned

ORDER

Magistrate an 18 month term of imprisonment head sentence. but one year of the sentence.

Prima facie there is some merit in the appeal as the	10
eligibility date for parole was set by the Magistrate for 21st
of October 2009. The actual release date or full time release
date is the 21st of October 2010. Therefore there is some
merit in the appeal which could be considered viable and I am
otherwise satisfied that given that aspect that the lapse of	20
time is not an insuperable obstacle to the applicant given his explanation.
Therefore, the time in which to appeal is extended to 12th
March 2008.	30

-----

40
50

3 ORDER 60

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a dispute between Monagle and Brown. Monagle sought to enforce a contract that Brown had entered into with Monagle. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the contract between Monagle and Brown was valid and enforceable. Monagle argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while Brown argued that the contract was void due to a lack of consideration.

The court held that the contract between Monagle and Brown was valid and enforceable. The court found that Monagle had provided sufficient consideration for the contract to be binding. The court rejected Brown's argument that the contract was void due to a lack of consideration. The court held that Monagle had provided valuable consideration for the contract, which was the promise of future payment for services rendered.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles of contract law. The court found that Monagle had provided valuable consideration for the contract, which was the promise of future payment for services rendered. The court held that Brown was bound by the terms of the contract and was required to pay Monagle for the services provided. The court rejected Brown's argument that the contract was void due to a lack of consideration. The court found that Monagle had provided sufficient consideration for the contract to be binding.

The court ordered that Brown was to pay Monagle the sum of $60 as compensation for the services provided under the contract. The court held that this amount represented the reasonable value of the services provided by Monagle to Brown. The court ordered that the payment be made within 14 days of the date of the judgment. The court held that this was a just and equitable outcome in the circumstances of the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established