Sugiyama Corporation v Boland - [2003] QDC 426

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
Sugiyama Corporation v Boland & Anor [2003] QDC 426

PARTIES:
BY COUNTERCLAIM:

SUGIYAMA CORPORATION

Plaintiff

and

CHRISTINE MARY BOLAND

First Defendant

and

SC NO 2 HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 098 660 345)

Second Defendant

CHRISTINE MARY BOLAND

Plaintiff

and

SUGIYAMA CORPORATION

Defendant

FILE NO:
907/2002

DIVISION:
Civil

PROCEEDING:
Application for summary judgment

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Southport

DELIVERED ON:
10 April 2003

DELIVERED AT:
Southport

HEARING DATE:
17 March 2003

JUDGE:
Alan Wilson SC DCJ

ORDER:
Dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment

CATCHWORDS:
PRACTICE – PROCEDURE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – application for summary judgment – whether need for trial

TAXES AND DUTIES – STAMP DUTIES – GENERALLY – whether unstamped contract of sale may be relied upon – undertaking to present for assessment of duty

Duties Act 2001, s 487
Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000

Cases considered:

Caxton Street Agencies Pty Ltd v Korkidas & Anor [2002] QSC 210

CSR Limited v Casaron Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 021

Fight Vision Pty Ltd v Onisforou (1999) 47 NSWLR 473, at 491

FoodCo Management Pty Ltd v Go My Travel Pty Ltd (2002) 2 Qd R 249

Hoggett & Ors v O’Rourke & Anor (2000) QSC 387

M P Management (Aust) P/L v Churven & Anor (2002) QSC 320

National Australia Bank Ltd v Hart (2002) QSC 51

National Australia Bank Ltd v Troiani (2002) QCA 196

Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120 CLR 365

Pavey & Matthews Proprietary Limited v Paul (1986) 162 CLR 221

Peldan v Romano (2001) QSC 463

Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91

Verwayen v Commonwealth (1990) 170 CLR 394

Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 57

COUNSEL:
Dr C Jensen for the applicant plaintiff
Mr D A Quayle for the respondent first and second defendants

SOLICITORS: Nakano Kaneshiro Lawyers for the applicant plaintiff
Hickey Lawyers for the respondent first and second defendants

Under some contractual documents executed in August 2002 the first defendant agreed to sell her dwelling at Sanctuary Cove to the plaintiff for $2.8m. The second defendant was the real estate agent involved in that transaction. The sale was never completed and the plaintiff now sues for the return of its deposit of $140,000.00 and some other expenses, relying on the defendants’ alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Property Agents & Motor Dealers Act 2000 (PAMD) which require that these contracts now contain a warning statement alerting the purchaser to certain rights, and a “cooling-off” period. In this application the plaintiff sought summary judgment under UCPR r 292 for the amount of the deposit and some expenses which are claimed, under the PAMD, as a statutory debt (plus interest under the Supreme Court Act 1995, s 47).

For the plaintiff to obtain summary judgment under r 292 the Court must be satisfied that the defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there is no need for a trial. Although the plaintiff bears the onus…

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 Sugiyama Corporation v Boland 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: [2003] QDC 426
Decision Date: 10 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria was presented with a case where Sugiyama Corporation sought to enforce a contract of sale against Boland. The dispute centred around the enforceability of an unstamped contract of sale and whether the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment should be dismissed. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's failure to raise the issue of the unstamped contract in their defence meant the contract was enforceable, and therefore summary judgment was appropriate. The Defendant countered that the unstamped contract could not be relied upon and that there was a genuine issue of fact regarding the contract's validity.

The court had to determine if the unstamped contract of sale could be enforced despite the stamp duty not being paid. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there were any genuine issues of fact that necessitated a trial. The Plaintiff's argument hinged on the Defendant's failure to plead the unstamped nature of the contract in their defence, while the Defendant maintained that the unstamped contract was unenforceable and that the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment should be dismissed.

The court found that the unstamped contract of sale was not enforceable as it was void under the Stamp Act. The Plaintiff's failure to pay the stamp duty rendered the contract unenforceable, and therefore, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment. The court concluded that there were genuine issues of fact regarding the enforceability of the contract, and thus, a trial was necessary to resolve these issues. The court ordered the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment to be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment

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:	Sugiyama Corporation v Boland & Anor [2003] QDC 426
PARTIES: BY COUNTERCLAIM:	SUGIYAMA CORPORATION Plaintiff and CHRISTINE MARY BOLAND First Defendant and SC NO 2 HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 098 660 345) Second Defendant CHRISTINE MARY BOLAND Plaintiff and SUGIYAMA CORPORATION Defendant
FILE NO:	907/2002
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for summary judgment
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Southport
DELIVERED ON:	10 April 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	17 March 2003
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson SC DCJ
ORDER:	Dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE – PROCEDURE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – application for summary judgment – whether need for trial TAXES AND DUTIES – STAMP DUTIES – GENERALLY – whether unstamped contract of sale may be relied upon – undertaking to present for assessment of duty Duties Act 2001, s 487 Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 Cases considered: Caxton Street Agencies Pty Ltd v Korkidas & Anor [2002] QSC 210 CSR Limited v Casaron Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 021 Fight Vision Pty Ltd v Onisforou (1999) 47 NSWLR 473, at 491 FoodCo Management Pty Ltd v Go My Travel Pty Ltd (2002) 2 Qd R 249 Hoggett & Ors v O’Rourke & Anor (2000) QSC 387 M P Management (Aust) P/L v Churven & Anor (2002) QSC 320 National Australia Bank Ltd v Hart (2002) QSC 51 National Australia Bank Ltd v Troiani (2002) QCA 196 Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120 CLR 365 Pavey & Matthews Proprietary Limited v Paul (1986) 162 CLR 221 Peldan v Romano (2001) QSC 463 Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 Verwayen v Commonwealth (1990) 170 CLR 394 Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 57
COUNSEL:	Dr C Jensen for the applicant plaintiff Mr D A Quayle for the respondent first and second defendants
SOLICITORS:	Nakano Kaneshiro Lawyers for the applicant plaintiff Hickey Lawyers for the respondent first and second defendants