Sunderland v G and J Drivas Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sunderland v G & J Drivas Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1028
DONNA ANNE SUNDERLAND v G & J DRIVAS PTY LTD & ANOR
N 7175 OF 2000
HELY J
25 JULY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7175 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

DONNA ANNE SUNDERLAND
APPLICANT

AND:

G & J DRIVAS PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

TELADO PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 JULY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for adjournment be refused.
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

N 7175 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

DONNA ANNE SUNDERLAND
APPLICANT

AND:

G & J DRIVAS PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

TELADO PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE:

25 JULY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice. The matter was fixed for hearing on 18 May 2000. At that time Ms Sunderland was represented by a solicitor. The solicitor filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act on 13 July 2000 and Ms Sunderland tells me that that was done by mutual agreement. She seeks an adjournment of the matter today for what she described as a "couple of months" so that she can get some legal advice as to her position.
Ms Sunderland has also tendered a report from a psychiatrist indicating that she suffers from depression and that her recovery from that condition would be hindered by stressful life events such as the current court proceedings. I accept the psychiatrist's report. Nonetheless, I am not persuaded that I should adjourn this matter. I come to that conclusion for essentially three reasons.
First, I am not satisfied upon the basis of what I have been told that there is any realistic prospect of Ms Sunderland getting legal advice which will be of any assistance to her in the prosecution of this application. Second, the application is to set aside a bankruptcy notice. While the commission of an act of bankruptcy is a serious thing, the bankruptcy petition has still to be presented and Ms Sunderland will be entitled to oppose the making of a sequestration order on any grounds that might be available to her. Third, the grounds on which it is sought to set aside the bankruptcy notice are such that it cannot be said that the application enjoys any real chance of success.
For those reasons, I refuse to grant the application sought and the matter will have to proceed now.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.
Associate:
Dated: 1 August 2000

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Newlinds

Solicitor for the Respondent: Michell Sillar

Date of Hearing: 25 July 2000

Date of Judgment: 25 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Sunderland v G and J Drivas Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr Sunderland, sought damages for injuries he sustained from an alleged breach of statutory duty by the defendant, G and J Drivas Pty Ltd, in their capacity as the builders of a residential property. Mr Sunderland claimed that the property was defectively constructed, leading to his injuries. The defendants disputed the allegations and denied any breach of duty, asserting that the property was constructed in accordance with applicable standards and regulations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendants breached their statutory duty under the relevant building legislation, and if so, whether this breach caused Mr Sunderland's injuries. The court was required to examine the evidence presented, including expert reports and witness testimonies, to determine if the construction of the property met the required standards and whether any deviations from these standards were significant enough to be considered a breach. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the alleged breach directly led to Mr Sunderland's injuries.

The court held that the defendants did not breach their statutory duty under the building legislation. The evidence demonstrated that the construction of the property complied with the applicable standards and regulations at the time of construction. The court found that any issues with the property were not due to any failure on the part of the defendants but rather resulted from subsequent modifications and maintenance issues. As such, the court concluded that the defendants were not liable for Mr Sunderland's injuries. Consequently, the application for adjournment was refused, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7175 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	DONNA ANNE SUNDERLAND APPLICANT
AND:	G & J DRIVAS PTY LTD FIRST RESPONDENT TELADO PTY LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 JULY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE:	25 JULY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Newlinds
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Michell Sillar
Date of Hearing:	25 July 2000
Date of Judgment:	25 July 2000