Stuart v Kruse

Case [2008] FCA 958


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
Applicant

AND:

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
Applicant

AND:

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:

  1. This proceeding has been heard with proceeding number NSD 785/2008 (Want v Kruse).  In each case the relief claimed is substantially the same.

  2. For the reasons contained in the judgment delivered in NSD 785/2008 the Court adjourns the proceedings to a date to be fixed.

  3. 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

Details
AGLC
Stuart v Kruse [2008] FCA 958
Case
[2008] FCA 958
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuart brought a proceeding against Kruse for recovery of damages for breach of contract. The parties had entered into an agreement for the sale of a property, and Stuart claimed Kruse had breached the contract. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

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

COWDROY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COWDROY J

Full text does not contain this section.