Legal Research
Cases
Von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Company Ltd

Von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Company Ltd

Case [2001] QCA 163

Appeal

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2001] QCA 163

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
THOMAS JA
MACKENZIE J

Appeal No 5162 of 2000

EUSTACE VON RISEFER and
ELIZABETH VON RISEFER Appellants

and

PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/04/2001

ORDER

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The order will be that unless the appellants, by 4 p.m. on 18 May 2001, file in the Registry a record book in relation to this appeal the contents of which are to accord with the directions of the Registrar the appeal is deemed to stand dismissed with costs to be assessed.

...

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Well, Mrs Von Risefer, someone has to pay the costs of today. There is no reason sufficient to justify our not dealing with them on this occasion and the mention having been the result of the default to which I have referred earlier there will be an order that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to today to be assessed.

‑‑‑‑‑

Details

AGLC: Von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Company Ltd [2001] QCA 163
Case: [2001] QCA 163
Decision Date: 27/04/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Eustace Von Risefer and Elizabeth Von Risefer versus Permanent Trustee Company Limited was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, with de Jersey CJ, Thomas and Mackenzie JJ presiding. The appellants sought to appeal a decision made by a lower court, which had ruled in favour of the respondent. The central dispute revolves around the execution of a mortgage over certain property, and the appellants' claim that this was done under duress and without their proper consent.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the mortgage was executed validly and whether the appellants were coerced into signing the mortgage documents. The Court had to determine if the appellants' signatures on the mortgage were obtained through duress, and if the mortgage was executed in accordance with the legal requirements. Additionally, the Court needed to decide if the appellants' failure to file a record book within the stipulated time constituted grounds for dismissing the appeal.

The Court found that the appellants had not discharged the onus of proving that the mortgage was executed under duress or that it was not valid. The appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, and the Court was satisfied that the mortgage was executed properly. The Court also held that the appellants' failure to file a record book in accordance with the Registrar's directions was a serious default, and it resulted in the dismissal of their appeal. As a consequence, the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders