Williamson v Schutz - [2000] QDC 18

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Williamson v Schutz & Ors [2000] QDC 018

PARTIES: PETER NOEL WILLIAMSON (Plaintiff)
v
ANTHONY JOHN SCHUTZ (First Defendant)
DREDGE CORP INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (Second Defendant)
BRAMBLES AUSTRALIA LIMITED (Third Defendant)
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED (Fourth Defendant)

FILE NO/S: 3607 of 1999

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVERED ON: 7 March 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 7-11,14-18 February and 7 March, 2000

JUDGE: J.M. Robertson, D.C.J.

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS: Conversion; onus of proof of allegation of forgery; admissibility of unstamped instrument; implied right of indemnity; joinder after limitation period has expired; s.4A Stamp Act 1894, UCPR.69, 74(5); s.82(2) Trade Practices Act (1974); costs of third party against successful defendant.

CASES CITED IN JUDGMENT: North Shore Gas Co Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW)
(1939-40) 63 CLR 52
McCaughey v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1914) 18 CLR 475
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449
Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Wardley Australia Limited v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Jekos Holding Pty Ltd v Australian Horticultural Finance Pty Ltd
[1994] 2 Qd.R 515
Fibreglass Pool (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd v ICI Australia Pty Ltd
[1998] 1 Qd.R 149
Johnson v Ribbins [1977] 1 All E.R. 806
Swisstex Finance Pty Ltd v Lamb [1993] 2 Qd.R 463

COUNSEL: Mr Frank Redmond (Plaintiff)
Mr Anthony Collins (First and Second Defendants)
Mr Lindsay Bowden (Third Defendant)
Mr Richard Lilley (Fourth Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Cranston McEachern (Plaintiff)
Garland Waddington (First and Second Defendants)
Minter Ellison (Third Defendant)
Thyne & McCartney (Fourth Defendant)

Introduction

The plaintiff claims ownership of certain items of property, predominantly dredging equipment, contained in two shipping containers which were delivered by the third defendant to the first defendant, acting on behalf of the second defendant, on or about the 18^th day of October 1996. The plaintiff says that the containers contained the equipment particularised in paragraph 13 of his amended claim. The plaintiff’s claim is for damages (including exemplary damages) for conversion against the first and second defendants; for damages for breach of contract and/or negligence, and exemplary damages against the third defendant; and for damages pursuant to s.82 of the Trade Practices Act and exemplary damages against the fourth defendant.

There is some common factual ground. The plaintiff and the first defendant were friends in 1994. The first defendant and his wife were also friendly with the plaintiff’s wife. The first defendant is a businessman and property developer. In 1994 he had no experience in the dredging and drilling business.

The plaintiff on the other hand was a very experienced dredging and drilling operator. His company Dredging and Off-Shore Drilling Pty Ltd (DOD) had operated in this business since 1988. The plaintiff had wide experience in various dredging operations, including sand mining.

The first defendant was familiar with some property in Townsville known as Laudham Park. He and the plaintiff travelled…

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 Williamson v Schutz

Details

AGLC: Williamson v Schutz [2000] QDC 18
Case: [2000] QDC 18
Decision Date: 7 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williamson v Schutz involved a dispute regarding conversion and the admissibility of an unstamped instrument. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court. Williamson, the plaintiff, alleged that Schutz, the defendant, wrongfully converted a property deed. The plaintiff sought damages and an implied right of indemnity. The defendant, in turn, raised several defences, including the unstamped nature of the document and the expiration of the limitation period for joinder of additional parties.

The court needed to determine the admissibility of the unstamped document and whether it constituted evidence of the alleged conversion. Another critical issue was the onus of proof concerning the allegation of forgery. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of joinder after the limitation period had expired and whether such joinder was permissible under the relevant statute. The court also needed to assess the applicability of the Trade Practices Act in this context.

The court found that the unstamped document was inadmissible as evidence due to the requirements of the Stamp Act. It held that the onus of proving the forgery rested with the party alleging it, which in this case was the plaintiff. The court ruled that the defendant's joinder after the limitation period had expired was permissible under the applicable provisions of the UCPR. The court further found that the Trade Practices Act did not apply to the facts of this case. As a result, the plaintiff's claim for conversion and implied indemnity was dismissed.

The court ordered that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's costs and further directed that the plaintiff bear the costs of the third party who intervened in the proceedings. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements regarding document stamping and the burden of proof in cases of alleged forgery.

Orders