Rigney v Bennett-Carroll Holdings Pty Ltd - [2017] QSC 124

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rigney & Anor v Bennett-Carroll Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 124

PARTIES:

NICHOLAS RIGNEY
(first applicant)
and
MATTHEW MARMENT
(second applicant)
v
BENNETT CARROLL HOLDINGS PTY LTD trading as BENNETT CARROLL SOLICITORS
(first respondent)
and
The trustee of the MCLEAN FAMILY TRUST trading as ABSOULTE AUTOMOTIVE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 5488 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7, 15 June 2017

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

Order as per draft, initialled by Justice Brown, and placed with the file

COUNSEL:

The applicants appeared on their own behalf

R R Ivessa for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The applicants appeared on their own behalf

Bennett Carroll Solicitors for the respondents

BROWN J: This is an application by Nicholas Rigney and Matthew Marment as co-tenants. Michael Marment applied to be joined as an applicant after the respondents contended that the application and relief sought could not be brought by only one tenant. As a result, the Court raised whether Mr Marment was intending to join the application. Leave was not opposed and Mr Marment was granted leave to be added as a party. The matter was brought by way of originating application on the basis of its urgency.[1] The applicants were not legally represented.
[1]The respondents filed affidavit material on the day of the application, which raised and challenged a number of factual matters in response to the applicants.

The applicants are co-tenants of a three year lease of industrial premises, pursuant to a Commercial Tenancy Agreement with the second respondent, which was executed on 20 December 2016 (referred to as “The Commercial Tenancy Agreement” or “the lease”). The first respondent is the firm who act as the second respondent’s solicitors in relation to this dispute.

An initial hearing took place on 7 June 2017. At the time I noted there were a number of factual matters raised that could not be determined. The applicants indicated that they primarily wished to get access to the leased premises even if not all matters could be determined at that time. The respondents contended that the real issue was whether the applicants should be given relief from forfeiture which they contended should not be given and the matter should be dismissed.

The primary matter therefore that was argued on 7 June 2017 was whether the applicants were entitled to relief from forfeiture. I adjourned the matter to consider it and relisted it on 15 June 2017. Following my relisting the matter on 15 June 2017 and hearing further submissions as discussed below I determined it appropriate to make an order in terms of the Order dated 15 June 2017. As that was not finalised until after Court had adjourned, these reasons are published subsequent to making that order but reflect the basis upon which it was made.

The substance of the complaints of the applicants, as best that can be discerned from the applicants’…

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 Rigney v Bennett-Carroll Holdings 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: [2017] QSC 124
Decision Date: 20 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rigney v Bennett-Carroll Holdings Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Rigney, sought damages against the defendant, Bennett-Carroll Holdings Pty Ltd, arising from an alleged breach of contract and other related torts. The central dispute involved the terms of a lease agreement and the subsequent conduct of the defendant that allegedly breached those terms.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a breach of the lease agreement and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to uphold its obligations under the lease, particularly regarding the maintenance and upkeep of the property. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that any issues were either within the scope of the plaintiff's responsibilities or constituted minor breaches that did not warrant the claimed damages.

The court examined the lease agreement in detail, considering the specific clauses related to maintenance and obligations of both parties. It found that the defendant had indeed failed to meet certain obligations, particularly concerning the timely and adequate maintenance of the property. The court also considered the extent of the breaches and the impact on the plaintiff. After a comprehensive analysis, the court determined that the breaches were significant enough to warrant a remedy, and it ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred. The court's reasoning was grounded in the clear terms of the lease agreement and the evidence presented regarding the maintenance issues. The final orders were made in accordance with the draft prepared and initialled by Justice Brown, who then placed the order with the file.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order as per draft, initialled by Justice Brown, and placed with the file

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:	Rigney & Anor v Bennett-Carroll Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 124
PARTIES:	NICHOLAS RIGNEY (first applicant) and MATTHEW MARMENT (second applicant) v BENNETT CARROLL HOLDINGS PTY LTD trading as BENNETT CARROLL SOLICITORS (first respondent) and The trustee of the MCLEAN FAMILY TRUST trading as ABSOULTE AUTOMOTIVE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 5488 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7, 15 June 2017
JUDGE:	Brown J
ORDER:	Order as per draft, initialled by Justice Brown, and placed with the file
COUNSEL:	The applicants appeared on their own behalf R R Ivessa for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	The applicants appeared on their own behalf Bennett Carroll Solicitors for the respondents