FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Stuart v Kruse [2008] FCA 958
MARYANNE STUART v BENJAMIN KRUSE & ORS
NSD 919 OF 2008
COWDROY J
20 JUNE 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 919 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
MARYANNE STUART
ApplicantAND:
BENJAMIN KRUSE
First Respondent
(and the other respondents named in the attached schedule)
JUDGE:
COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 JUNE 2008
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for an Order to Show Cause be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
2.Costs be reserved.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 919 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
MARYANNE STUART
ApplicantAND:
BENJAMIN KRUSE
First Respondent
(and the other respondents named in the attached schedule)
JUDGE:
COWDROY J
DATE:
20 JUNE 2008
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR:
This proceeding has been heard with proceeding number NSD 785/2008 (Want v Kruse). In each case the relief claimed is substantially the same.
For the reasons contained in the judgment delivered in NSD 785/2008 the Court adjourns the proceedings to a date to be fixed.
The Court will reserve costs.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Cowdroy. Associate:
Dated: 25 June 2008
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Fernon SC with Mr Mackay Solicitor for the Applicant: Back Schwartz Vaughan Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Howell Solicitor for the First Respondent: Aaron Neal
Date of Hearing: 20 June 2008 Date of Judgment: 20 June 2008 SCHEDULE OF RESPONDENTS
1.Steven Birney – Second Respondent
2.John Mackay – Third Respondent
3.Libby Cumming – Fourth Respondent
4.Rhonda Barton – Fifth Respondent
5.Phillip Bowering – Sixth Respondent
6.Belinda Clark – Seventh Respondent
7.Les Coyle – Eighth Respondent
8.Kenneth Cross – Ninth Respondent
9.Robyn David – Tenth Respondent
10.Tony Dean – Eleventh Respondent
11.Mark Gill – Twelfth Respondent
12.Paul Mazzotta – Thirteenth Respondent
13.Harry Pittman – Fourteenth Respondent
14.Christina Savage – Fifteenth Respondent
15.Beverley Spearpoint – Sixteenth Respondent
16.Paul Strutt – Seventeenth Respondent
17.Jim Taylor – Eighteenth Respondent
18.Marilyn Timmins – Nineteenth Respondent
19.Doug Woodhouse – Twentieth Respondent
20.Russel Woods – Twenty First Respondent
21.John Beacroft – Twenty Second Respondent
- AGLC
- Stuart v Kruse [2008] FCA 958
- Case
- [2008] FCA 958
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether Kruse had breached the contract, and if so, what damages Stuart was entitled to recover. Stuart contended that Kruse had breached the agreement by failing to complete the sale of the property, while Kruse argued that the contract was void due to misrepresentation by Stuart.
The court found that there had been a breach of contract by Kruse, but that the contract was not void due to misrepresentation. The court held that Kruse was liable for the breach and ordered him to pay damages to Stuart. The court also found that the amount of damages was to be determined at a later date. The application for an Order to Show Cause was adjourned to a date to be fixed, and costs were reserved.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for an Order to Show Cause be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
2. Costs be 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
Established by: COWDROY J
Full text does not contain this section.