Trappando Pty Ltd v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd - [2024] QSC 100

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Trappando Pty Ltd v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 100

PARTIES:

Trappando Pty Ltd

(Respondent Plaintiff)
v
Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd

(Applicant Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

154 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

3 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

On papers – 3 May 2024

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – AMENDING, VARYING AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where a trial and unsuccessful appeal were conducted – where the defendant filed for special leave to the High Court but discontinued after entering into a deed of settlement with the plaintiff – where the conditions of the deed agreed upon the payment of a lesser amount to the plaintiff than ordered at trial, with the plaintiff agreeing to forever abandon entitlement to the gap – where the parties filed a request for a consent order of the Registrar to set aside orders of the trial judge – where the Registrar refused – where the defendant filed an application by consent to seek the order on the papers – where the parties placed reliance on r 667 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – where finality considerations apply – whether r 667 applies – whether the Court has jurisdiction

L Shaddock and Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 2) [1983] 151 CLR 590, cited

Matton Development Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2) [2016] QCA 285, cited

Permanent Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (Executor Estate of Andrews) v Stocks and Holdings (Canberra) Pty Ltd (1976) 15 ACTR45, cited

Trappando Pty Ltd v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 87, cited

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 667

SOLICITORS:
Lawside Lawyers for the Applicant Defendant
O’Reilly Stevens for the Respondent Plaintiff

The parties to concluded litigation have tried to return the case via today’s listed application to seek an order materially altering the final judgment of this Court. They do so for no reason other than their own agreement to such an order.
Their use of the Court’s valuable time and resources in this way is purportedly justified by reliance on r 667(2)(e) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. That rule provides:
“The Court may set aside an order at any time if – …
(e) the party who has the benefit of the order consents.”
Reliance on the rule in the circumstances of this case on the part of the party pressing the application is misconceived.
As to those circumstances, Trappando was appointed by a so-called Form 6 Appointment as Agent for the sale of Sunshine Group’s property. A dispute arose over Trappando’s entitlement to an agent’s commission. Trappando filed a claim, and Sunshine Group counterclaimed. The trial was heard in the Cairns Supreme Court before the Chief Justice last year. Her Honour gave judgment for Trappando and dismissed the…

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 Trappando Pty Ltd v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd 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: [2024] QSC 100
Decision Date: 3 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Trappando Pty Ltd v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd, the parties were engaged in a legal dispute concerning the enforcement and modification of a settlement agreement. The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Trappando, the plaintiff, initially pursued legal action against Sunshine Group Australia, the defendant, which resulted in a trial and subsequent appeal, both of which were unsuccessful for the plaintiff. After the defendant filed an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which stipulated a reduced payment to Trappando. The plaintiff agreed to relinquish any future claims regarding the remaining amount due. Following the settlement, the parties jointly requested the Registrar to set aside the previous orders. However, the Registrar refused to do so. Subsequently, the defendant applied to the Court for a consent order, relying on rule 667 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The central legal issues before the Court were whether the rule applied to the situation and whether the Court had jurisdiction to grant the order.

The Court examined the applicability of rule 667, which pertains to the setting aside of orders on consent. It considered the principle of finality in litigation and the context in which the rule was intended to operate. The Court noted that rule 667 was designed to facilitate the resolution of disputes where the parties had reached a mutual agreement. However, in this case, the Court found that the finality of the settlement agreement and the terms agreed upon by the parties meant that the rule was not applicable. The Court held that the application of rule 667 was inappropriate given the circumstances and that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to set aside the trial judge's orders.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the defendant's application. The Court's decision was based on the principle that once a settlement agreement is reached and the terms are accepted by both parties, the previous orders become final and cannot be altered through the application of rule 667. The Court emphasised the importance of finality in litigation and the need to respect the terms agreed upon by the parties. The orders of the Court effectively upheld the terms of the settlement agreement and maintained the finality of the trial judge's orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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:	Trappando Pty Ltd v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 100
PARTIES:	Trappando Pty Ltd (Respondent Plaintiff) v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	154 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	3 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	On papers – 3 May 2024
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – AMENDING, VARYING AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where a trial and unsuccessful appeal were conducted – where the defendant filed for special leave to the High Court but discontinued after entering into a deed of settlement with the plaintiff – where the conditions of the deed agreed upon the payment of a lesser amount to the plaintiff than ordered at trial, with the plaintiff agreeing to forever abandon entitlement to the gap – where the parties filed a request for a consent order of the Registrar to set aside orders of the trial judge – where the Registrar refused – where the defendant filed an application by consent to seek the order on the papers – where the parties placed reliance on r 667 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – where finality considerations apply – whether r 667 applies – whether the Court has jurisdiction L Shaddock and Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 2) [1983] 151 CLR 590, cited Matton Development Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2) [2016] QCA 285, cited Permanent Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (Executor Estate of Andrews) v Stocks and Holdings (Canberra) Pty Ltd (1976) 15 ACTR45, cited Trappando Pty Ltd v Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 87, cited Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 667
SOLICITORS:	Lawside Lawyers for the Applicant Defendant O’Reilly Stevens for the Respondent Plaintiff