Wilson v Cobble Patch Loganlea Pty Ltd - [2015] QDC 235

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wilson v Cobble Patch Loganlea Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 235

PARTIES:

ROBERT JAMES WILSON
(applicant)

v

COBBLE PATCH LOGANLEA PTY LTD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD2842/14

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING
COURT:

Appellate

Magistrates Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON: 24 September 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2015

JUDGE:

Judge Farr SC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal is granted.

2.   The appeal is allowed.

3.   The order for summary judgment made in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh on 27 June 2014 in the amount of $14,493.69 plus costs of and incidental to the application in the sum of $2,185.00 and interest to be calculated is set aside.

4.   The application for summary judgment is dismissed.

5.   The matter is to be determined at trial in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh with a different magistrate.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL - where the learned magistrate failed to give reasons in a contested application for summary judgment- whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether an important principle of law on justice is involved - whether there were disputes requiring resolution at trial.

COUNSEL:

LA Stephens for the applicant
P Previtera (Solicitor) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

NIL for the applicant
Alex Mackay & Co for the respondent

The applicant seeks leave, pursuant to s 45(2) of the Magistrates Court Act 1921, to appeal an order made in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh on 27 June 2014 whereby the magistrate ordered that summary judgment be entered in favour of the respondent in the sum of $14,493.69 plus costs of and incidental to the application in the sum of $2,185.00 and interest to be calculated.

Brief summary of alleged facts

On 8 August 2012, South East Civil and Drainage Contractors Pty Ltd (“the company”) entered into a written agreement with the respondent for the company to purchase goods on credit (“the credit agreement”). The applicant alleges that the credit agreement limited the value of the credit to be extended to the company to $10,000.00. That allegation is in dispute. The respondent alleges that the applicant guaranteed the performance of the company’s obligations (“the guarantee”). The applicant denies signing any such guarantee. Between 16 October 2012 and 28 November 2012, the respondent allegedly sold and delivered goods to the company totalling $19,127.00. On 20 August 2013, the respondent commenced proceedings against the applicant in debt, pursuant to the purported guarantee. The applicant filed a defence in the proceedings alleging:

(a) the applicant did not sign any guarantee as alleged and the guarantee did not comply with s 56 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld);[1] or alternatively
[1]Paragraph 4(a) and 4(b) of defence.

(b) it was a term of the credit agreement that the amount of credit to be extended to the company was limited to $10,000.00 and the respondent, without the consent of the applicant, varied the credit agreement to increase the credit limit to $19,127.00, or allowed the company to purchase goods on credit in excess of $10,000.00, and…

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 Wilson v Cobble Patch Loganlea Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Cobble Patch Loganlea Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 235
Case: [2015] QDC 235
Decision Date: 24 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the plaintiff, Wilson, against the decision of the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh. The defendant, Cobble Patch Loganlea Pty Ltd, had been granted summary judgment in the amount of $14,493.69, plus additional costs and interest. Wilson sought leave to appeal, arguing that the magistrate had failed to provide reasons for the decision and that there were significant disputes requiring resolution at trial.

The court needed to determine whether the appeal should be granted and whether an important principle of law on justice was involved. The appeal hinged on whether the magistrate's failure to provide reasons for the summary judgment decision constituted a significant error that warranted the appeal being heard. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were genuine disputes of fact that should be resolved at trial.

The court found that the magistrate's failure to provide reasons for the summary judgment decision was a significant error. The court determined that this constituted a failure to properly consider the case and that there were indeed disputes requiring resolution at trial. The court held that an important principle of law on justice was involved and granted leave to appeal. The appeal was subsequently allowed, and the order for summary judgment was set aside. The application for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was to be determined at trial in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh with a different magistrate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The order for summary judgment made in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh on 27 June 2014 in the amount of $14,493.69 plus costs of and incidental to the application in the sum of $2,185.00 and interest to be calculated is set aside.

4. The application for summary judgment is dismissed.

5. The matter is to be determined at trial in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh with a different magistrate.

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:	Wilson v Cobble Patch Loganlea Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 235
PARTIES:	ROBERT JAMES WILSON (applicant) v COBBLE PATCH LOGANLEA PTY LTD (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD2842/14
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:	Appellate Magistrates Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	24 September 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2015
JUDGE:	Judge Farr SC, DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is allowed. 3. The order for summary judgment made in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh on 27 June 2014 in the amount of $14,493.69 plus costs of and incidental to the application in the sum of $2,185.00 and interest to be calculated is set aside. 4. The application for summary judgment is dismissed. 5. The matter is to be determined at trial in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh with a different magistrate.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL - where the learned magistrate failed to give reasons in a contested application for summary judgment- whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether an important principle of law on justice is involved - whether there were disputes requiring resolution at trial.
COUNSEL:	LA Stephens for the applicant P Previtera (Solicitor) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	NIL for the applicant Alex Mackay & Co for the respondent