Spoor v Price

Case [2019] QCA 297

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Spoor & Ors v Price & Ors [2019] QCA 297

PARTIES:

CHRISTINE CLAIRE SPOOR AND KERRY JOHN SPOOR AS TRUSTEES, MARIANNE PIENING, FREDERICK PIENING, JOYCE HIGGINS, CHERYL THOMPSON, JOYCE MAVIS COOMBER, ANGUS MACQUEEN AND ANGUS MACQUEEN AS TRUSTEE
(appellants)
v
MATTHEW WARD PRICE AND DANIEL JAMES PRICE AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ALAN LESLIE PRICE (DECEASED)
(first respondent)
ALLANNA MERCIA PRICE
(second respondent)
JAMES BURNS PRICE
(third respondent)
GLADYS ETHEL PRICE BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN ERIN ELIZABETH TURNER
(fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5021 of 2019
SC No 8069 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 53 (Dalton J)

DELIVERED ON:

17 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 September 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson and Morrison JJA

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Set aside the orders made on 12 and 15 April 2019.

3.   Order that the parties make submissions in writing, not to exceed five pages, as to the form of further orders consistent with these reasons and as to costs, such submissions to be filed and served on or before 28 January 2020.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER GENERAL MATTERS – where the parties executed two mortgages over land to secure an advance of $320,000 in 1998 – where the appellants brought proceedings in 2017 against the respondents to recover the monies owing and possession of the land secured by the mortgage – where the respondents denied liability for the amount claimed on the basis that the appellants were statute barred from pursuing the action by operation of sections 10, 13 and 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – where the appellants argued that the respondents were unable to plead any defence under the Limitation of Actions Act by virtue of clause 24 of each mortgage – where the learned primary judge rejected the respondents’ submission that it was not possible at law to contract out of the provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act – whether an agreement to contract out of the Limitation of Actions Act is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy – whether an agreement that contracts out of the Limitation of Actions Act was itself subject to the operation of the Limitation of Actions Act

MORTGAGES – MORTGAGE CONTRACT – COVENANTS – OTHER MATTERS – where the parties executed two mortgages over land to secure an advance of $320,000 in 1998 – where the appellants brought proceedings in 2017 against the respondents to recover the monies owing and possession of the land secured by the mortgage – where the respondents denied liability for the amount claimed on the basis that the appellants were statute barred from pursuing the action by operation of sections 10, 13 and 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – where the appellants argued that the respondents were unable to plead any defence under…

Continue reading Spoor v Price

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Spoor v Price [2019] QCA 297
Case
[2019] QCA 297
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spoor v Price, the dispute centered on the validity of a clause within two mortgages executed by the parties in 1998 to secure a loan of $320,000. The appellants initiated proceedings in 2017 to recover the outstanding debt and possession of the land secured by the mortgages. The respondents countered by asserting that the appellants' claim was barred by sections 10, 13, and 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The appellants argued that clause 24 of the mortgages, which stated that statutory provisions curtailing the rights and remedies of the mortgagee would not apply, prevented the respondents from raising a limitations defence. The primary judge ruled against the respondents, finding clause 24 ambiguous and concluding that the mortgagee's title to the land was extinguished before the proceedings were initiated.

The central legal issues before the court were whether an agreement to contract out of the Limitation of Actions Act could be valid and enforceable, and if such an agreement could itself be subject to the act's limitations. The court had to determine whether clause 24 effectively barred the respondents from asserting a limitations defence and whether the primary judge's findings were correct. Specifically, the court needed to address whether clause 24 was ambiguous and if it correctly prevented the pleading of a limitations defence.

The court concluded that the primary judge had erred in his interpretation of the Limitation of Actions Act. It found that clause 24 was not ambiguous and that it successfully contracted out of the operation of the act. The court held that there was no public policy reason to render such an agreement void and unenforceable. The primary judge's conclusion that the mortgagee's title was extinguished before the proceedings began was also incorrect. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made on 12 and 15 April 2019. It directed the parties to submit written arguments regarding the form of further orders and costs within a specified timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Set aside the orders made on 12 and 15 April 2019.

3. Order that the parties make submissions in writing, not to exceed five pages, as to the form of further orders consistent with these reasons and as to costs, such submissions to be filed and served on or before 28 January 2020.

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.