Springfield Land Development Corporation v Melisavon Pty Ltd - [2013] QSC 228

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Springfield Land Development Corporation v Melisavon Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 228

PARTIES:

SPRINGFIELD LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACN 055 714 531 AS TRUSTEE FOR SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT TRUST
(plaintiff)
v
MELISAVON PTY LTD ACN 010 635 837
(defendant)

FILE NO:

5108 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

30 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 March 2013

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

1. The defendant’s application for summary judgment is dismissed;

2. Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where the defendant made an application for summary judgment pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the plaintiff made a claim for damages for negligence and accordingly by operation of s 10 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) the claim will be statute barred if the cause of action arose prior to 16 June 2005 – where the defendant argued that the cause of action for negligence in respect of economic loss suffered as a result of a latent defect arose when the loss first occurred – where the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff’s representatives did not know of the loss sustained – where the plaintiff argued that there were real issues of fact to be tried in the proceeding – whether the plaintiff’s claim in this proceeding is statute barred – whether the application ought to be allowed.

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 10

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293

Cyril Smith & Associates Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 64970 [2011] NSWCA 181, considered
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539, cited
Pullen v Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27, considered
Sheldon v McBeath (1993) Aust Tort Reports 81 – 209, considered
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424, cited

COUNSEL:

P Freeburn SC and C Jennings for the plaintiff

M R Hodge for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Russells Lawyers for the plaintiff

Thynne & McCartney for the defendant

This application by the defendant for summary judgment, pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 293, turns on a discrete question as to whether the plaintiff’s claim in this proceeding is statute barred.

The proceeding was commenced by a claim and statement of claim filed on

16 June 2011. The claim is for damages for negligence, and accordingly, by operation of s 10 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974, the claim will be statute barred if the cause of action arose prior to 16 June 2005 (i.e. the date six years prior to the commencement of the proceeding).

The plaintiff’s claim, as pleaded in the amended statement of claim filed 21 May 2012 (“the ASOC”), can be summarised as follows:

(a)The plaintiff is, and has at all material times been, the lessee of certain land at…

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 Springfield Land Development Corporation v Melisavon 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: [2013] QSC 228
Decision Date: 30 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Springfield Land Development Corporation, filed a claim against Melisavon Pty Ltd for damages resulting from alleged negligence. The dispute revolves around a latent defect in property that was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant, leading to economic loss. The matter was brought before the court under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred as it potentially arose before 16 June 2005. The defendant argued that the cause of action accrued when the loss first occurred, while the plaintiff contended that their representatives were unaware of the loss and thus the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court had to determine if the plaintiff's claim was indeed barred and whether the defendant's application for summary judgment should be granted.

The court considered the arguments from both parties and focused on the interpretation of when the cause of action for negligence accrued. The plaintiff argued that the cause of action did not accrue until they became aware of the loss, invoking the principle that ignorance of the facts giving rise to a cause of action can toll the running of the limitation period. The court found that there were genuine issues of fact that needed to be resolved, particularly regarding the plaintiff's knowledge of the defect and the resulting loss. Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred and dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment. The court reserved costs pending further directions.

The court's decision underscored the importance of factual inquiries in determining the accrual of a cause of action under the Limitation of Actions Act. The dismissal of the summary judgment application meant that the case would proceed to trial, allowing the plaintiff to present their evidence and arguments in full. The court's final orders were to dismiss the defendant's application for summary judgment and reserve costs for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant’s application for summary judgment is dismissed;

2. Costs reserved.

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:	Springfield Land Development Corporation v Melisavon Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 228
PARTIES:	SPRINGFIELD LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACN 055 714 531 AS TRUSTEE FOR SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT TRUST (plaintiff) v MELISAVON PTY LTD ACN 010 635 837 (defendant)
FILE NO:	5108 of 2011
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	30 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 March 2013
JUDGE:	Daubney J
ORDER:	1. The defendant’s application for summary judgment is dismissed; 2. Costs reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where the defendant made an application for summary judgment pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the plaintiff made a claim for damages for negligence and accordingly by operation of s 10 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) the claim will be statute barred if the cause of action arose prior to 16 June 2005 – where the defendant argued that the cause of action for negligence in respect of economic loss suffered as a result of a latent defect arose when the loss first occurred – where the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff’s representatives did not know of the loss sustained – where the plaintiff argued that there were real issues of fact to be tried in the proceeding – whether the plaintiff’s claim in this proceeding is statute barred – whether the application ought to be allowed. Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 10 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293 Cyril Smith & Associates Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 64970 [2011] NSWCA 181, considered Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539, cited Pullen v Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27, considered Sheldon v McBeath (1993) Aust Tort Reports 81 – 209, considered Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424, cited
COUNSEL:	P Freeburn SC and C Jennings for the plaintiff M R Hodge for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Russells Lawyers for the plaintiff Thynne & McCartney for the defendant