Steel Framing System Pty Ltd v Peter Roy Wakeling (No 2)
[2013] QDC 7
•15 January 2013
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Steel Framing System Pty Ltd v Peter Roy Wakeling (No 2) [2013] QDC 7
PARTIES:
STEEL FRAMING SYSTEM PTY LTD
(Plaintiff )
AND
PETER ROY WAKELING
(Defendant)FILE NO/S:
2171/2011
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
15 January 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
JUDGE:
Samios DCJ
ORDER:
1. Order as per draft delivered by counsel for the plaintiff.
COUNSEL:
S. McNeil appeared for the Applicant.
The Respondent was not represented.
SOLICITORS:
Colville Solmstone Lawyers for the Applicant.
The Respondent was not represented.
In this matter, I am satisfied there should be summary judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant. In my opinion, the evidence is such that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the plaintiff's claim and there is no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim.
The plaintiff is clearly entitled to the sum due under the agreement and interest provided for pursuant to the agreement. The plaintiff is also entitled, in my view, to the costs of these proceedings and this application and including the proceedings in the Supreme Court and to register the adjudication; all of those costs to be paid by the defendant on the indemnity basis.
There will be an order as per the draft, which will be delivered by counsel for the plaintiff to my Associate later today.
This is an application for extension of time for the filing of a notice of appeal to this Court. This is an appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act against the decision of the learned Magistrate who on the 24th of March 2011 struck out two charges brought by the appellant against the respondent.
The charges were that on the 18th of February 2010, the respondent exceeded the speed limit on a road and that he, without reasonable excuse, used on a road a motor vehicle whilst a number plate was not attached as required.
0
0
0