Schepis & Anor v. Esanda Finance Co Ltd
Case
•
[2007] QSC 56
•9 March 2007
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Schepis v Esanda Finance Co Ltd [2007] QSC 56
[2007] QSC 56
9 March 2007
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Anthony Schepis and Michele Debra Schepis sought damages against Esanda Finance Corporation Limited, Jones Condon Australia Pty Limited, and Kemp Strang Lawyers Pty Limited, alleging wrongful repudiation of a lease and fraud in evidence fabrication. The plaintiffs, unrepresented, claimed damages for loss of share value, assets, legal costs, and emotional distress. The defendants sought judgment against the plaintiffs, striking out their claim, or transferring the matter to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court found that the claims were barred by res judicata as the issues had already been decided in previous litigation in New South Wales. The court also noted that it had no jurisdiction to set aside a New South Wales judgment. Given the plaintiffs had no real prospect of success, the court entered judgment against them, awarding costs to be assessed.
The court reviewed the extensive background material provided by the plaintiffs, including previous litigation outcomes and appeals, all of which had upheld the defendants' claims. The plaintiffs' argument centred on the alleged fabrication of evidence and fraud by the defendants in the earlier proceedings, which had already been adjudicated. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were not only precluded by the doctrine of res judicata but also lacked merit. The court found no grounds for transferring the case to another jurisdiction or setting aside the judgment, as those remedies were not available in this instance. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' application for judgment against the plaintiffs, ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs.
The court reviewed the extensive background material provided by the plaintiffs, including previous litigation outcomes and appeals, all of which had upheld the defendants' claims. The plaintiffs' argument centred on the alleged fabrication of evidence and fraud by the defendants in the earlier proceedings, which had already been adjudicated. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were not only precluded by the doctrine of res judicata but also lacked merit. The court found no grounds for transferring the case to another jurisdiction or setting aside the judgment, as those remedies were not available in this instance. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' application for judgment against the plaintiffs, ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Res Judicata
-
Jurisdiction
-
Breach of Contract
-
Fraud
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0