Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Riggall

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd  v Riggall [2014] QDC 80

PARTIES:

PERPETUAL TRUSTEES VICTORIA LTD
(ABN 470 040 27258)

(plaintiff)

v

WAYNE RALPH RIGGALL

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D110/13

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Registrar’s Referral under UCPR 982

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

JUDGE:

Long SC DCJ

ORDER:

The application is not to be filed or given any date for hearing.1.   

The registrar is to forthwith provide the plaintiff and defendant with a copy of this determination and the reasons recorded herein.2.   

CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Registrar’s referral under UCPR 982 – Whether application should be accepted by the Registrar and filed – Whether the matter requires any hearing in the District Court

Gallo v Dawson (1989) 63 ALJR 121
Sirros v Moore [1975] 1 QB 118 at 132
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226 CLR 256
Cuttler v Browne [2010] QCA 346

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, 31, 967, 968, 982
District Court of Queensland Act 1967, s 5(2)
Judicial Review Act 1991, s 42

  1. These reasons are provided in respect of the determination of the court, on the referral of the Registrar, as herein recorded and in respect of an application, purportedly made in this proceeding.

  1. The file of the court in relation to this proceeding was commenced on 15 July 2013, by the filing of a claim by the plaintiff for a debt in the amount of $207,745.81 plus interest, pursuant to the terms of a loan agreement and mortgage and the recovery of the possession of the land against which that obligation was secured. 

  1. On 28 March 2014, orders were made by Judge Robertson to the effect that an application, filed by the defendant on 26 March 2014, be dismissed, the plaintiff’s application filed on 10 March 2014, for summary judgment, was allowed with an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff $217,457.22 including interest in the amount of $9,711.41, from the date of claim until 28 March 2014 and that the plaintiff recover possession of the land and that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application.

  1. On 9 April 2014, a document in the form of an application made in those proceedings and under UCPR 31 and signed by the abovenamed defendant[1] was received at the registry of the court at Maroochydore and date stamped, 9 April 2014.  The operative part of that application reads as follows:

    [1]Although described as “3rd Party Interest Intervener”. 

“Denial of Order issued 28 March 2014 by Judge Robertson

TAKE NOTICE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS APPLYING TO THE COURT FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:
Instruction to the Registrar..

1.Schedule a hearing for John M. Robertson dba as JUDGE JOHN M. ROBERTSON and issue a summons for John M. Robertson dba as JUDGE JOHN M. ROBERTSON to appear, and

1.Issue a subpoena Duces Tecum to John M. Robertson to produce the original or a certified copy of his oath of office, bond,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Riggall 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
[2014] QDC 80
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited initiated proceedings against Mr. Riggall in the District Court of Victoria. The dispute revolves around an application filed by Mr. Riggall under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Vic) (UCPR), seeking to set aside an earlier default judgment. The case was referred to the Registrar under UCPR 982, who needed to determine whether the application should be accepted and if a hearing was necessary.

The primary legal issue was whether the Registrar had the authority to accept Mr. Riggall’s application and schedule it for a hearing in the District Court. The court had to consider the procedural rules and the circumstances under which a Registrar could exercise such discretion. The court also needed to assess the merits of the application itself, including whether there were valid grounds for setting aside the default judgment.

The court determined that the application should not be accepted by the Registrar for filing or for a hearing in the District Court. The decision was based on the procedural rules and the nature of the application. The court found that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for setting aside the default judgment. Consequently, the Registrar was instructed to provide both parties with a copy of the determination and the reasons for the decision.

The final orders were that the application was not to be filed or given any date for hearing, and the Registrar was to provide the plaintiff and defendant with a copy of the determination and the reasons recorded within it.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is not to be filed or given any date for hearing.1.

The registrar is to forthwith provide the plaintiff and defendant with a copy of this determination and the reasons recorded herein.2.

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.