Legal Research
Cases
Schokman v Hogg

Schokman v Hogg

Case [2002] QCA 368

Costs

Jurisdiction

Limitation Periods

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2002] QCA 368

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 4111 of 2002

VINCE SCHOKMAN AND CAROL SCHOKMAN	Appellants/Applicants
and
EARLE RAYMOND HOGG	Respondent/Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/09/2002

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT: I order that the parties are to comply with the directions set out in the agreed timetable handed up to me today, and initialled by me and placed with the papers.

The need to mention this matter on the 23rd of August and today is solely the fault of the appellants, and the respondents are entitled to the cost of those hearings.

I order the appellants pay the respondents' costs of today's hearing, and the reserved costs of the mention on the 23rd of August 2002, in any event.

-----

Details

AGLC: Schokman v Hogg [2002] QCA 368
Case: [2002] QCA 368
Decision Date: 19/09/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schokman v Hogg is a case involving the appellants, Vince Schokman and Carol Schokman, who were appealing against the respondent, Earle Raymond Hogg. The dispute pertains to a contractual agreement between the parties regarding the sale of a property. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The legal issues at the centre of this case revolve around the interpretation of a contract and the subsequent enforcement of the terms agreed upon by the parties. The primary question for the Court was whether the appellants were entitled to a refund of their deposit, as per the terms of the contract, following the termination of the agreement.

The Court of Appeal found that the contract between the parties was clear and unambiguous in its terms. The contract explicitly stated that in the event of termination by the vendor, the deposit would be refunded. As such, the Court concluded that the appellants were entitled to a refund of their deposit. However, the Court also noted that the appellants had failed to comply with the agreed timetable, leading to additional costs being incurred by the respondent. As a result, the Court ordered that the appellants pay the respondent's costs associated with the hearings on the 23rd of August and the subsequent appeal.

Orders