Praxis Pty Ltd v Hewbridge Pty Ltd - [2004] QCA 79

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Praxis P/L v Hewbridge P/L & Anor [2004] QCA 79

PARTIES:

PRAXIS PTY LTD
ACN 010755030
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
HEWBRIDGE PTY LTD
ACN 010647560
(first defendant/applicant)
v
PKF INVESTMENT SERVICES PTY LTD
ACN 011007051

(second defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 547 of 2004

DC No 229 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

26 March 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and McMurdo J

Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Application dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – DISTRICT COURTS – CIVIL JURISDICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT – FROM WHAT DECISIONS AND ON WHAT GROUNDS – where applicants seek leave to appeal after judgment given in District Court for $49,596 after $54,600 claimed for misrepresentation about suitability of land – whether judgment equal to or more than jurisdictional limit – whether judgment is for or relating to property equal to or more than jurisdictional limit – whether it is reasonably arguable that there is a right of appeal – whether there is any reason to grant leave to appeal

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) s 118(2), s 118(3), s 118(5)

Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd [2000] 2 Qd R 83; [1998] QCA 446 distinguished

COUNSEL:

G F Crow for the applicants

R W Morgan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet (Mackay) for the applicants
McKays (Mackay) for the respondent

:THE COURT This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment given after a trial in the District Court at Mackay. The judgment was for a total amount of $49,596 and was given on 24 December 2003. It has been assumed by the parties, no doubt correctly, that at that date the provisions of the recently amended s 118(2) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 applied to this application. The amendment was effected by the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 (Act no 77 of 2003), which took effect on 8 December 2003.

As amended at that date, s 118 provided, so far as material, that:

“(1) …
(2) A party who is dissatisfied with a final judgment of the District Court in its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court of Appeal if the judgment -
(a)is given for an amount equal to or more than the Magistrates Courts jurisdictional limit; or
(b)relates to a claim for, or relating to, property that has a value equal to or more than the Magistrates Courts jurisdictional limit.

(3) A party who is dissatisfied with any other judgment of the District Court, whether in the court’s original or appellate jurisdiction, may appeal to the Court of Appeal with the leave of that court.
(4)…

(5) If it is reasonably arguable that a right of appeal under this section exists, the Court of Appeal may treat that…

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 Praxis Pty Ltd v Hewbridge 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: [2004] QCA 79
Decision Date: 26 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Praxis Pty Ltd v Hewbridge Pty Ltd involved an appeal to the Supreme Court of Queensland from a decision of the District Court. The applicants, Praxis Pty Ltd, sought leave to appeal a judgment from the District Court where they were awarded $49,596 out of a claim of $54,600 for misrepresentation regarding the suitability of a piece of land. The applicants contested the District Court's jurisdiction to entertain the matter, arguing that the jurisdictional limit of the District Court had been exceeded.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the judgment amount met or exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. The court had to determine if the judgment itself or the amount related to the property in dispute was equal to or exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, which is $750,000 under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Civil and Administrative Appeals legislation. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether there was a reasonably arguable right of appeal and if any grounds existed for granting leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court found that the District Court's judgment did not exceed the jurisdictional limit and that it was not reasonably arguable that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the amount awarded did not equate to or exceed the jurisdictional threshold and did not relate to property of a value that would elevate the matter beyond the District Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed with costs

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:	Praxis P/L v Hewbridge P/L & Anor [2004] QCA 79
PARTIES:	PRAXIS PTY LTD ACN 010755030 (plaintiff/respondent) v HEWBRIDGE PTY LTD ACN 010647560 (first defendant/applicant) v PKF INVESTMENT SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 011007051 (second defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 547 of 2004 DC No 229 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	26 March 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2004
JUDGES:	McPherson and Jerrard JJA and McMurdo J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – DISTRICT COURTS – CIVIL JURISDICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT – FROM WHAT DECISIONS AND ON WHAT GROUNDS – where applicants seek leave to appeal after judgment given in District Court for $49,596 after $54,600 claimed for misrepresentation about suitability of land – whether judgment equal to or more than jurisdictional limit – whether judgment is for or relating to property equal to or more than jurisdictional limit – whether it is reasonably arguable that there is a right of appeal – whether there is any reason to grant leave to appeal District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) s 118(2), s 118(3), s 118(5) Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd [2000] 2 Qd R 83; [1998] QCA 446 distinguished
COUNSEL:	G F Crow for the applicants R W Morgan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Macrossan & Amiet (Mackay) for the applicants McKays (Mackay) for the respondent