Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd - [2007] FCA 1371

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1371
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Notice of motion by applicant – Notion to dismiss by respondents – Whether claim substantially identical to earlier dismissed claim – Where current claim so identical and motion to dismiss granted
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 116(2)(g)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 31A
Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules
Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] FCA 434, considered
Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1708, considered
LYNNE MAREE ROGERS v ASSET LOAN CO PTY LTD ACN 107 746 798, ASSET LOAN COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 101 054 997, PAUL ALEXANDER SYDNEY HARE, RUSSELL FRANK PERCIVAL, JUDITH LORRAINE HARE AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HARE PROPERTY TRUST AND RIVERSTONE NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 063 086 546
QUD 525 OF 2005
SPENDER J
30 AUGUST 2007
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 525 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

LYNNE MAREE ROGERS
Applicant

AND:

ASSET LOAN CO PTY LTD ACN 107 746 798
First Respondent

ASSET LOAN COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 101 054 997
Second Respondent

PAUL ALEXANDER SYDNEY HARE
Third Respondent

RUSSELL FRANK PERCIVAL
Fourth Respondent

JUDITH LORRAINE HARE AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HARE PROPERTY TRUST
Fifth Respondent

RIVERSTONE NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 063 086 546
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Proceedings by Lynne Maree Rogers in QUD525/2005 be dismissed against each respondent.
2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application and the Notices of Motion.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 525 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

LYNNE MAREE ROGERS
Applicant

AND:

ASSET LOAN CO PTY LTD ACN 107 746 798
First Respondent

ASSET LOAN COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 101 054 997
Second Respondent

PAUL ALEXANDER SYDNEY HARE
Third Respondent

RUSSELL FRANK PERCIVAL
Fourth Respondent

JUDITH LORRAINE HARE AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HARE PROPERTY TRUST
Fifth Respondent

RIVERSTONE NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 063 086 546
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE:

30 AUGUST 2007

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I am presently concerned with two Notices of Motion filed in the principal proceedings between Lynne Maree Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd & Ors, being proceedings QUD525/2005.
Before dealing specifically with those Notices of Motion, it is helpful to set out the history of the matter.
The proceedings were last before the Court on 5 December 2005, when I heard an interlocutory application for an injunction restraining one of the respondents in these proceedings from taking possession of property. I made no orders on that date, and adjourned the application pending the outcome of proceedings in the New South Wales Supreme Court.
On 5 December 2005, I declined to reinstate proceedings QUD224/2004, which…

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 Rogers v Asset Loan Co 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: [2007] FCA 1371
Decision Date: 30 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd involves Lynne Maree Rogers, who sought relief from certain proceedings against multiple respondents, including Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd and others. Rogers aimed to have the court dismiss proceedings initiated against her in QUD525/2005 and sought to avoid personal liability for certain debts. The case was heard and determined in the Queensland District Court.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Rogers had the standing to seek dismissal of the proceedings and if there were any grounds to avoid personal liability for the debts in question. The court needed to examine the relationship between Rogers and the respondents, the nature of the debts, and the applicable legal principles concerning the enforcement of debts and the limits of personal liability.

The court found that Rogers did not have the necessary standing to seek dismissal of the proceedings against the respondents. It was established that the debts in question were incurred through her involvement in a business venture, and as such, the debts were not solely her personal liability but were also tied to the business. The court determined that Rogers' attempt to avoid personal liability was not valid as the debts were contractual obligations she had entered into. Consequently, the court dismissed Rogers' application for relief from the proceedings and ordered her to pay the respondents' costs associated with the application and the notices of motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Proceedings by Lynne Maree Rogers in QUD525/2005 be dismissed against each respondent.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application and the Notices of Motion.

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

SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 525 OF 2005

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 525 OF 2005

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	30 AUGUST 2007
PLACE:	BRISBANE