Pradella v Oakley - [2016] QDC 253

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pradella v Oakley [2016] QDC 253

PARTIES:

PRADELLA, Petrea Lee
(applicant/plaintiff)

v

OAKLEY, Ann Vivien
(respondent/defendant)

FILE NO:

D 63 of 2016

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

30 September 2016

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2016; 30 September 2016

JUDGE:

Long SC DCJ

ORDER:

1. The defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $668,000, being $580,000 for the plaintiff’s claim plus interest to this day totalling $88,000.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of this proceeding including the costs of this application on an indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF OR APPLICANT – GENERALLY – Where the applicant seeks summary judgment in respect of a claim for damages for breach of contract – Where the issue relates to the terms of the loan agreement and as to the repayment of the principal and the payment of interest – Where the respondent does not dispute her obligation to pay interest – Where the respondent resists the application only as to a debt for the principal sum upon the basis that the terms of the agreement were varied on several dates and that the verbal agreement between the parties was that she would repay the principal when she was able to – Whether the respondent has no real prospect of defending all or part of the applicant’s claim – Whether there is no need for a trial of the claim or the part of the claim

LEGISLATION:

Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, s 133
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, ss 292, 292(2), 385(3), 166(1), 743S

CASES:

Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552
Amos v Monsour P/L & Ors [2009] QCA 65
Bolton Properties Pty Ltd v JK Investments Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 202
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232.
Queensland University of Technology v Project Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] 1 Qd R 259

COUNSEL:

S Gerber for the applicant/plaintiff

The respondent/defendant appeared on her own behalf on 23 September 2016

SOLICITORS:

Cartwrights Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff

The respondent/defendant appeared on her own behalf on 23 September 2016

By an application filed on 19 August 2016, the plaintiff in this matter seeks summary judgment pursuant to r 292 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”). On 30 September 2016, the following orders were made on that application:

“1. The defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $668,000, being $580,000 for the plaintiff’s claim plus interest to this day totalling $88,000.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of this proceeding including the costs of this application on an indemnity basis.”

These are the reasons for those orders.

The claim in relation to which such judgment is sought was commenced by the filing of a claim and statement of claim, on 27 May 2016.…

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.

Continue reading Pradella v Oakley

Details

AGLC: Pradella v Oakley [2016] QDC 253
Case: [2016] QDC 253
Decision Date: 30 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pradella brought an action against Oakley for damages for breach of contract. The action related to a loan agreement between the parties. Oakley disputed the claim for the principal sum but did not dispute the obligation to pay interest. Oakley argued that the terms of the loan agreement were varied on several occasions and that she would repay the principal when she was able to do so. Pradella applied for summary judgment in respect of the claim. The court was required to determine whether Oakley had no real prospect of defending all or part of the claim and whether there was no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim.

The court noted that Oakley did not dispute the obligation to pay interest. Oakley argued that the terms of the loan agreement were varied on several occasions, but the court found that the evidence did not support this claim. The court held that Oakley had no real prospect of defending all or part of the claim. The court held that there was no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Pradella and ordered that Oakley pay Pradella the sum of $668,000, being $580,000 for the claim plus interest to that day totalling $88,000. The court further ordered that Oakley pay Pradella’s costs of the proceeding including the costs of the application on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $668,000, being $580,000 for the plaintiff’s claim plus interest to this day totalling $88,000.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of this proceeding including the costs of this application on an indemnity basis.

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:	Pradella v Oakley [2016] QDC 253
PARTIES:	PRADELLA, Petrea Lee (applicant/plaintiff) v OAKLEY, Ann Vivien (respondent/defendant)
FILE NO:	D 63 of 2016
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	30 September 2016
DELIVERED AT:	District Court at Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	23 September 2016; 30 September 2016
JUDGE:	Long SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $668,000, being $580,000 for the plaintiff’s claim plus interest to this day totalling $88,000. 2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of this proceeding including the costs of this application on an indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF OR APPLICANT – GENERALLY – Where the applicant seeks summary judgment in respect of a claim for damages for breach of contract – Where the issue relates to the terms of the loan agreement and as to the repayment of the principal and the payment of interest – Where the respondent does not dispute her obligation to pay interest – Where the respondent resists the application only as to a debt for the principal sum upon the basis that the terms of the agreement were varied on several dates and that the verbal agreement between the parties was that she would repay the principal when she was able to – Whether the respondent has no real prospect of defending all or part of the applicant’s claim – Whether there is no need for a trial of the claim or the part of the claim
LEGISLATION:	Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, s 133 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, ss 292, 292(2), 385(3), 166(1), 743S
CASES:	Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 Amos v Monsour P/L & Ors [2009] QCA 65 Bolton Properties Pty Ltd v JK Investments Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 202 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232. Queensland University of Technology v Project Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] 1 Qd R 259
COUNSEL:	S Gerber for the applicant/plaintiff The respondent/defendant appeared on her own behalf on 23 September 2016
SOLICITORS:	Cartwrights Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff The respondent/defendant appeared on her own behalf on 23 September 2016