Morphett v Rivergate Marina and Shipyard Pty Ltd - [2018] QCA 15

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morphett v Rivergate Marina & Shipyard Pty Ltd [2018] QCA 15

PARTIES:

ALEXANDRA MORPHETT
(applicant)
v
RIVERGATE MARINA & SHIPYARD PTY LTD
ACN 116 163 912
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6425 of 2017
DC No 1516 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2017] QDC 141

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 20 October 2017
Date of Publication of Reasons: 23 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 October 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P, Morrison JA and Jackson J

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 20 October 2017

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM DISTRICT COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – where duties of bailee of a boat modified by contract – where applicant was ordered by the District Court to pay expenses of salvaging applicant’s boat while bailed to respondent – where applicant applied for leave to appeal to this Court – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Crouch v Jeeves (1938) Pty Ltd (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 242; [1946] NSWStRp 18, cited

COUNSEL:

P Somers for the applicant
N H Ferrett with M Forrest for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bennett & Philp for the applicant
Archibald & Brown for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: I agree with the reasons of Jackson J.
MORRISON JA: I agree with the reasons of Jackson J. Those reasons reflect my own for agreeing with the orders made.
JACKSON J: This application was heard on 20 October 2017, and orders were made on that day. These are the reasons for those orders.
The application was for leave to appeal from a civil judgment of the District Court.[1] After a five day trial, the District Court reserved judgment. The judgment given on the claim was that the applicant pay to the respondent the amount of $85,231.01 including $25,468.11 by way of interest and on the applicant’s counterclaim against the respondent that the counterclaim be dismissed. As well, the District Court dismissed the respondent’s claim against the second defendant. The learned Judge gave detailed reasons for judgment in 38 pages.
[1]Rivergate Marina & Shipyard Pty Ltd v Morphett [2017] QDC 141.
The respondent operates a marina and shipyard on the Brisbane River. In late 2010, a wooden hulled motor cabin cruiser, the “C Princess” (“the boat”) came into the shipyard and work was done on it by various subcontractors for the respondent to perform work that was done by the respondent for the applicant under a written agreement. Not all of the work was paid for.
From September 2011, the respondent refused to release the boat from the marina until the unpaid amounts were paid. That did not occur. Invoice no 16306 in the sum of $23,256.45 remained unpaid. The respondent obtained judgment for that sum as part of the judgment.[2] The applicant does…

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 Morphett v Rivergate Marina and Shipyard Pty Ltd 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: [2018] QCA 15
Decision Date: 23 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Morphett appealed against a decision of the District Court that required him to pay the costs of salvaging his boat, which was in the possession of Rivergate Marina and Shipyard Pty Ltd. The District Court had found that the duties of the bailee were modified by a contract between the parties, which obligated the bailee to take reasonable steps to save the boat from damage. The Court ordered Morphett to pay the costs of salvaging the boat, and he sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted. Morphett argued that the District Court's decision was wrong in law, as the contract did not require him to pay for the costs of salvaging the boat. He contended that the contract only obligated the bailee to take reasonable steps to save the boat from damage, and that the costs of salvaging the boat were not reasonable steps. The bailee argued that the contract did require the bailor to pay for the costs of salvaging the boat, and that the District Court's decision was correct.

The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should not be granted. The Court found that the District Court had correctly interpreted the contract and that the terms of the contract required the bailor to pay for the costs of salvaging the boat. The Court held that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that there was no error in law that warranted an appeal. The Court also found that the bailor had not demonstrated that the appeal had a real chance of success or that there was some other compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.

Morphett's application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court ordered that Morphett pay the respondent's costs of the application. This decision highlights the importance of carefully reviewing and understanding the terms of a contract before entering into it, particularly when it comes to obligations and liabilities that may arise in the event of damage or loss.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 20 October 2017

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

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:	Morphett v Rivergate Marina & Shipyard Pty Ltd [2018] QCA 15
PARTIES:	ALEXANDRA MORPHETT (applicant) v RIVERGATE MARINA & SHIPYARD PTY LTD ACN 116 163 912 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6425 of 2017 DC No 1516 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2017] QDC 141
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Orders: 20 October 2017 Date of Publication of Reasons: 23 February 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 October 2017
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P, Morrison JA and Jackson J
ORDERS:	Date of Orders: 20 October 2017 1. Application dismissed. 2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM DISTRICT COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – where duties of bailee of a boat modified by contract – where applicant was ordered by the District Court to pay expenses of salvaging applicant’s boat while bailed to respondent – where applicant applied for leave to appeal to this Court – whether leave to appeal should be granted Crouch v Jeeves (1938) Pty Ltd (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 242; [1946] NSWStRp 18, cited
COUNSEL:	P Somers for the applicant N H Ferrett with M Forrest for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bennett & Philp for the applicant Archibald & Brown for the respondent