Queensland Pork Pty Ltd v Lott

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Qld Pork P/L v Lott [2003] QCA 271

PARTIES:

QLD PORK PTY LTD ABN 62 257 371 610
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
COLLEEN THERESE LOTT
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 204 of 2003 
DC No 15 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application - Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bowen

DELIVERED ON:

4 July 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Cullinane and Jones JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – where summary judgment was given against the defendant – whether the defendant had no real prospect of defending claim for summary judgment – whether there was need for a trial

PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY –where the primary judge had altered the original judgment - whether he was empowered to do so under the slip rule (Rule 388) or the power conferred by Rule 667(2) or in the court’s inherent jurisdiction

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), Rules 292, 293, 295, 388, 667(2)(d)
District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 69(1)

Autodesk Inc & Anor v Dyason & Ors [No 2] (1993) 176 CLR 300, followed
Bernstrom v National Australia Bank Limited [2002] QCA 231; Appeal No 9031 of 2001, 28 June 2002, followed
Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, considered
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England No 3 (2001) 2 All ER 513, considered

COUNSEL:

R A Quirk for the appellant
W Sofronoff QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lee Turnbull & Co for the appellant
Ruddy, Tomlins & Baxter for the respondent

1. McMURDO P:  I agree with Cullinane J that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons he gives. 

1. The learned primary judge's original reasons for judgment were based on the mistaken belief that the parties had agreed on the quantum of the dispute. When this mistake was brought to His Honour's attention and before the formal order was taken out, His Honour heard further submissions and corrected his reasons for judgment and order. He was entitled to do so under the powers arising from UCPR rr 388 and 667(2)(d)[1] and the court's inherent power[2] to recall a judgment before its formal entry where the interests of justice so require: Autodesk Inc v Dyason [No 2].[3]

   [1]For the purposes of the UCPR, "order" includes a judgment, direction, decision or determination of a court, whether final or otherwise (UCPR Sch 4 – Dictionary).

   [2]See s 69(1) District Court Act 1967 (Qld).

   [3](1993) 176 CLR 300.

1. Under UCPR r 292, the respondent was entitled to its judgment below if it satisfied the court that it was so entitled to judgment and that the appellant had no real prospect of successfully defending all or part of the claim and there was no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim. It is…