Valleyfield P/L v Primac Ltd - [2002] QSC 134

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Valleyfield P/L v Primac Ltd & Anor [2002] QSC 134

PARTIES: VALLEYFIELD PTY LTD ACN 051 841 279 AS TRUSTEE OF THE PARKER UNIT INVESTMENT TRUST
(plaintiff)
v
PRIMAC LIMITED ACN 010 023 284
(first defendant/not a party to these proceedings)
NETAFIM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 056 229 755
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S: S 344 of 1999

DIVISION: Trial

PROCEEDING: Application under Rule 388 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 16 May 2002

DELIVERED AT: Townsville

HEARING DATE: 14 May 2002

JUDGES: Cullinane J.

ORDER: Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES – INTEREST – PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – where Plaintiff made error in claim for interest in their written outline – whether Rule 388 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules is applicable – whether use of the slip rule can be applied where there was exercise of the Court’s discretion – where error and correction claimed no rule or difference of opinion can exist.

COUNSEL: J Baulch SC for the plaintiff
S Doyle SC, with R M Derrington, for the second defendant

SOLICITORS: Lee Turnbull & Co. for the plaintiff
Clayton Utz for the second defendant

The Plaintiff has made application to the Court pursuant to Rule 388 of the UCPR (the “slip” rule) seeking to have altered the interest component in a judgment pronounced in its favour against the Second Defendant (the Defendant) in the sum of $3,768,276.70.

The Plaintiff conducts small crop farming operations and successfully sued the Defendant for negligence in the design of an irrigation system. Damages were recovered for loss of income in the 1997 and 1998 years. No claim was made for loss of income in subsequent years. Damages were recovered for expenditures incurred by the Plaintiff in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Interest was allowed on all heads of damage (except expenditures in 2001 to which reference will be made a little later) at a rate of 5%. The Plaintiff contends that this occurred in circumstances which fall within the “slip” rule and that interest should be allowed at 10%.

In its written outline placed before the Court at trial (exhibited to the Affidavit of Mary Elizabeth Boittier on this application) the Plaintiff contended for various sums under the headings already referred to. Included in the written outline was a claim for interest at 10% for loss of income in 1997 and 1998 and 5% on all other heads of damage representing past loss.

The Plaintiff says that the reference in its written outline to 5% interest on these heads of damage was made in error and that this error was or should have been apparent. The Court awarded interest at 5% under all past heads of damage including those where the Plaintiff contended for 10%.

The scope of the “slip” rule extends beyond an error or oversight on the part of the Court. Toohey J. in an unreported judgment which the Plaintiff referred the Court…

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.

Continue reading Valleyfield P/L v Primac Ltd

Details

AGLC: Valleyfield P/L v Primac Ltd [2002] QSC 134
Case: [2002] QSC 134
Decision Date: 16 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Valleyfield P/L v Primac Ltd, the dispute arose from an error in the calculation of interest claimed by the plaintiff in their written outline. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court, where the plaintiff sought to correct the error and adjust the amount of interest claimed. The defendant contested the correction, arguing that the slip rule, as provided in Rule 388 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, should not apply in this case. The central issue for the court was whether the slip rule could be used to correct the error in the calculation of interest, particularly given the exercise of the court's discretion in this context.

The court considered the nature of the error and whether the slip rule, which allows for corrections of obvious errors in pleadings, could be applied. It noted that the slip rule is intended to facilitate the correction of minor and obvious errors to ensure that cases are decided on their merits rather than technicalities. However, the court had to consider whether the application of the slip rule was appropriate in this instance, particularly given the exercise of the court's discretion and the absence of any rule or differing opinion regarding the correction of the error. The court concluded that since the error was acknowledged and corrected by the plaintiff, and no rule or difference of opinion existed regarding the correction, the use of the slip rule was appropriate. The court dismissed the defendant's application and ordered that the costs of the application be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.

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:	Valleyfield P/L v Primac Ltd & Anor [2002] QSC 134
PARTIES:	VALLEYFIELD PTY LTD ACN 051 841 279 AS TRUSTEE OF THE PARKER UNIT INVESTMENT TRUST (plaintiff) v PRIMAC LIMITED ACN 010 023 284 (first defendant/not a party to these proceedings) NETAFIM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 056 229 755 (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S 344 of 1999
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application under Rule 388 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	16 May 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	14 May 2002
JUDGES:	Cullinane J.
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – INTEREST – PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – where Plaintiff made error in claim for interest in their written outline – whether Rule 388 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules is applicable – whether use of the slip rule can be applied where there was exercise of the Court’s discretion – where error and correction claimed no rule or difference of opinion can exist.
COUNSEL:	J Baulch SC for the plaintiff S Doyle SC, with R M Derrington, for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Lee Turnbull & Co. for the plaintiff Clayton Utz for the second defendant