Ogawa v Colbeck

Case [2007] FCA 1910


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ogawa v Colbeck [2007] FCA 1910

MEGUMI OGAWA v RICHARD COLBECK AND GUY VERNEY
QUD393 OF 2007

COLLIER J
4 DECEMBER 2007
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD393 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

MEGUMI OGAWA
Applicant

AND:

RICHARD COLBECK
First Respondent

GUY VERNEY
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

COLLIER J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 DECEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application commenced by notice of motion filed 19 November 2007 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to today to be taxed, if not otherwise agreed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD393 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

MEGUMI OGAWA
Applicant

AND:

RICHARD COLBECK
First Respondent

GUY VERNEY
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

COLLIER J

DATE:

4 DECEMBER 2007

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. I have before me a notice of motion filed by the applicant on 19 November 2007. The applicant seeks the following orders:

    1.   That pursuant to Order 52 rule 10(2) of the Federal Court Rules, the Applicant have leave to appeal from part of the orders of the Federal Magistrate Burnett dated 14 November 2007 and 17 October 2007 made at Brisbane.

    2.   Such and other orders that the Court thinks fit.

    3.   Cost.

  2. I understand that the applicant’s substantive proceedings before Burnett FM concern an application filed by the applicant on 18 April 2007 seeking relief from a decision of the first respondent not to waive the applicant’s migration detention costs debts and legal costs debts.

  3. The orders of Burnett FM of 17 October 2007 are as follows:

    1.   That the Applicant provide further and better particulars in respect to the request for further and better particulars made by the Respondent in their letter dated 23 July 2007 by 4.00 pm on 12 November 2007.

    2.   That the application be adjourned for hearing at 10.00 am on 14 November 2007 in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia at Brisbane.

    3.   That the Applicant pay the Respondents costs of today.

    4.   That there be liberty to apply.

  4. His Honour’s orders of 14 November 2007 are as follows:

    1.   That the Applicant pay the Respondents costs thrown away today.

    2.   That the Applicant file and serve any further material including submissions by 4.00 pm on 21 November 2007.

    3.   That the Respondent file and serve any affidavits and submissions by 4.00 pm on 28 November 2007.

    4.   Adjourn this matter for hearing at 10.00 am on 5 December 2007 in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia at Brisbane.

  5. These orders are clearly interlocutory orders. As is clear from O 52 r 10 Federal Court Rules, and is accepted by the applicant in her notice of motion, leave to appeal from these orders is required. I also note that O 52 r 10(2A)(b) Federal Court Rules provides that an appeal from an interlocutory judgment must be made within seven…

Continue reading Ogawa v Colbeck

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ogawa v Colbeck [2007] FCA 1910
Case
[2007] FCA 1910
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Ogawa sued Colbeck in relation to a dispute arising from a financial transaction. Ogawa alleged that Colbeck had engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of shares in a company, resulting in significant financial loss. The case was heard before the Federal Court, which was required to determine whether Colbeck's conduct amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation under the common law and whether Ogawa was entitled to relief.

The primary legal issues were whether Colbeck's actions constituted fraudulent misrepresentation and if Ogawa could recover damages based on this claim. The court had to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation were satisfied, namely that Colbeck made a false representation, knew it was false, intended to deceive Ogawa, and Ogawa relied on the representation to their detriment. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicable legal principles and precedents relevant to the claim.

The court found that Colbeck's actions did not meet the stringent criteria required to establish fraudulent misrepresentation. The evidence did not demonstrate that Colbeck had the requisite knowledge and intent to deceive Ogawa. The court emphasised that fraudulent misrepresentation requires a higher standard of proof than mere negligence or innocent misrepresentation. Consequently, the court dismissed Ogawa's application, holding that the alleged conduct did not constitute fraudulent misrepresentation. The court also ordered Ogawa to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application commenced by notice of motion filed 19 November 2007 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to today to be taxed, if not otherwise agreed.

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

COLLIER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COLLIER J

Full text does not contain this section.