Sexton Developments P/L v Yarrawonga P/L - [2003] QCA 173

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sexton Developments P/L v Yarrawonga P/L [2003] QCA 173

PARTIES:

SEXTON DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 010 554 953
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
YARRAWONGA PTY LTD ACN 009 713 071
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9135 of 2002
DC No 208 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2003

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed

2.   The decision of the District Court on 6 September 2002 dismissing the application to set aside the Registrar’s judgment given on 27 August 2002 is set aside

3.   The application to set aside the registrar’s judgment is granted and the judgment of the registrar set aside

4. In lieu judgment is entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for $20,000 together with interest under s 47 of the Supreme Court Act from 8 April 1994

5.   Time for giving notice of intention to defend and for filing a defence to the plaintiff’s claim is extended until 28 days after delivery of judgment on this appeal

6.   Further proceedings on the claim are remitted to the magistrates court at Townsville

7.   Defendant is ordered to pay:

(1) the costs of and incidental to the entry of judgment before the Registrar on 27 August 2002;
(2) the plaintiff’s costs of the application to the District Court judge to set aside the Registrar’s judgment;
(3) half of the costs of and incidental to this appeal.

The costs of (2) and (3) above should be taxed on the scale appropriate to an action in the magistrates court in which the sum claimed is $40,000

8. The application for a certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act is refused

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – CONTRACTS – WHEN TIME BEGINS TO RUN – whether right of action accrues when acknowledgment of debt occurs

PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – QUEENSLAND – DISTRICT COURTS – PRACTICE – PRCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL – COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION AND PLEADINGS – trial judge held no issue as to liability, but ordered assessment of damages – whether trial of liability is anterior to quantum

Consumer Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Qld) 1993 (no 82 of 1993), s 34
Land Sales Act (Qld) 1984, s 6(1), s 8(1)(b), s 8(2)
Limitation of Actions Act (Qld) 1974, s 35(3), s 36
Property Law Act (Qld) 1974, s 59
UCPR (Qld) 1999 r 290

Cook v Deeks [1916] 1 AC 554, mentioned
McDermott v Black (1940) 63 CLR 161, applied

COUNSEL:

M Drew for the appellant
R Alldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Porter Davies for the appellant
Ruddy Tomlins & Baxter Solicitors for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: John Sexton is a farmer at Mullaroo, but he also controls a company Sexton Developments Pty Ltd which engages in road construction. It is the plaintiff in this action. In 1994…

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 Sexton Developments P/L v Yarrawonga P/L 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: [2003] QCA 173
Decision Date: 2 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sexton Developments P/L brought an action against Yarrawonga P/L in the Queensland District Court, seeking damages for breach of contract. The defendant Yarrawonga P/L had defaulted on a judgment in a previous action, leading to the plaintiff's application for an assessment of damages. The dispute centred on the legal principles governing the limitation of actions in contract law, specifically when the right of action accrues and the running of the limitation period. The plaintiff argued that the cause of action accrued when Yarrawonga P/L acknowledged the debt, while the defendant contended that the cause of action did not accrue until the amount of damages was ascertained.

The court was required to determine whether the right of action accrued when the acknowledgment of debt occurred or when the quantum of damages was finally ascertained. This required the court to consider the principles of limitation periods in contract law and the procedural implications for the assessment of damages. The court also needed to address the procedural issue of whether the trial of liability is anterior to the assessment of quantum and the implications for the limitation period.

In allowing the appeal, the court found that the right of action accrued when the acknowledgment of debt occurred. The court held that the acknowledgment of debt by Yarrawonga P/L constituted a sufficient event to trigger the limitation period. The court further held that the assessment of damages was a procedural matter that did not affect the accrual of the cause of action. The court set aside the decision of the District Court and remitted the matter to the magistrates court for further proceedings. The court also ordered the defendant to pay various costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. The decision of the District Court on 6 September 2002 dismissing the application to set aside the Registrar’s judgment given on 27 August 2002 is set aside

3. The application to set aside the registrar’s judgment is granted and the judgment of the registrar set aside

4. In lieu judgment is entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for $20,000 together with interest under s 47 of the Supreme Court Act from 8 April 1994

5. Time for giving notice of intention to defend and for filing a defence to the plaintiff’s claim is extended until 28 days after delivery of judgment on this appeal

6. Further proceedings on the claim are remitted to the magistrates court at Townsville

7. Defendant is ordered to pay:

(1) the costs of and incidental to the entry of judgment before the Registrar on 27 August 2002;

(2) the plaintiff’s costs of the application to the District Court judge to set aside the Registrar’s judgment;

(3) half of the costs of and incidental to this appeal.

The costs of (2) and (3) above should be taxed on the scale appropriate to an action in the magistrates court in which the sum claimed is $40,000

8. The application for a certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act is refused

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:	Sexton Developments P/L v Yarrawonga P/L [2003] QCA 173
PARTIES:	SEXTON DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 010 554 953 (plaintiff/respondent) v YARRAWONGA PTY LTD ACN 009 713 071 (defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9135 of 2002 DC No 208 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 April 2003
JUDGES:	McPherson and Williams JJA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed 2. The decision of the District Court on 6 September 2002 dismissing the application to set aside the Registrar’s judgment given on 27 August 2002 is set aside 3. The application to set aside the registrar’s judgment is granted and the judgment of the registrar set aside 4. In lieu judgment is entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for $20,000 together with interest under s 47 of the Supreme Court Act from 8 April 1994 5. Time for giving notice of intention to defend and for filing a defence to the plaintiff’s claim is extended until 28 days after delivery of judgment on this appeal 6. Further proceedings on the claim are remitted to the magistrates court at Townsville 7. Defendant is ordered to pay: (1) the costs of and incidental to the entry of judgment before the Registrar on 27 August 2002; (2) the plaintiff’s costs of the application to the District Court judge to set aside the Registrar’s judgment; (3) half of the costs of and incidental to this appeal. The costs of (2) and (3) above should be taxed on the scale appropriate to an action in the magistrates court in which the sum claimed is $40,000 8. The application for a certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act is refused
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – CONTRACTS – WHEN TIME BEGINS TO RUN – whether right of action accrues when acknowledgment of debt occurs PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – QUEENSLAND – DISTRICT COURTS – PRACTICE – PRCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL – COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION AND PLEADINGS – trial judge held no issue as to liability, but ordered assessment of damages – whether trial of liability is anterior to quantum Consumer Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Qld) 1993 (no 82 of 1993), s 34 Land Sales Act (Qld) 1984, s 6(1), s 8(1)(b), s 8(2) Limitation of Actions Act (Qld) 1974, s 35(3), s 36 Property Law Act (Qld) 1974, s 59 UCPR (Qld) 1999 r 290 Cook v Deeks [1916] 1 AC 554, mentioned McDermott v Black (1940) 63 CLR 161, applied
COUNSEL:	M Drew for the appellant R Alldridge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Porter Davies for the appellant Ruddy Tomlins & Baxter Solicitors for the respondent