Young v Hoger

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Young & Ors v Hoger & Ors [2001] QCA 461

PARTIES: WILLIAM IAN YOUNG
DELICE YOUNG
GARY ALAN GRANT
EVELYN JEAN GRANT
LAKE MAPLE PTY LTD ACN 101 800 281
(plaintiffs/appellants)
v
ELVIN JOHN HOGER
(first defendant/first respondent)
MERLE EDITH HOGER
(second defendant/second respondent)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(third party/third respondent)

FILE NO/S: Appeal No 175 of 2001
SC No 8689 of 1998

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal - Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: Judgment delivered 23 October 2001
Further Order delivered 26 October 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 23 August 2001

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Davies JA and Holmes J
Further Order of the Court

FURTHER
ORDER:
1.    That the matter be remitted to the Trial Division for determination of the issues arising on the pleadings between the first defendant, the second defendant and the third party.

2.    That order 2 of orders made 23 October 2001 be varied as follows:
      "2. Set aside the following orders made below:
             (a)   orders 1, 2 and 3 made 6 December 2000;
             (b)   orders 1 and 2 made 12 December 2000."

COUNSEL: J A Griffin QC with B G Cronin for appellants
D J Campbell for first respondent
No appearance for second respondent
R J Douglas SC with B J Clark for third respondent

SOLICITORS: Walsh & Partners (Gold Coast) for appellants
J J Riba & Company (Maroochydore) for first respondent
No appearance for second respondent
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor for third respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Young initiated proceedings against Hoger, along with two other defendants, alleging breach of contract and seeking damages. The dispute centred around the interpretation and enforcement of a contract between the parties. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the decisions made by the Trial Division and determining whether the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Trial Division had properly exercised its discretion in varying orders and whether there were any errors in the interpretation of the contract between the parties. The Court needed to consider whether the Trial Division had misapplied the relevant legal principles in reaching its decisions, and if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. Additionally, the Court had to determine the appropriate orders to be made in light of its findings.

The Court of Appeal held that the Trial Division had erred in varying certain orders and in its interpretation of the contract. The Court found that the Trial Division had misapplied the relevant legal principles in reaching its decisions, and as such, the matter needed to be remitted to the Trial Division for further determination. The Court also varied the orders made by the Trial Division, setting aside certain orders and substituting new orders in their place. The Court found that the appropriate remedy was to remit the matter to the Trial Division for further consideration of the issues arising on the pleadings.

Orders of the court

1. That the matter be remitted to the Trial Division for determination of the issues arising on the pleadings between the first defendant, the second defendant and the third party.

2. That order 2 of orders made 23 October 2001 be varied as follows:

"2. Set aside the following orders made below:

(a) orders 1, 2 and 3 made 6 December 2000;

(b) orders 1 and 2 made 12 December 2000."

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Young & Ors v Hoger & Ors [2001] QCA 461
PARTIES:	WILLIAM IAN YOUNG DELICE YOUNG GARY ALAN GRANT EVELYN JEAN GRANT LAKE MAPLE PTY LTD ACN 101 800 281 (plaintiffs/appellants) v ELVIN JOHN HOGER (first defendant/first respondent) MERLE EDITH HOGER (second defendant/second respondent) STATE OF QUEENSLAND (third party/third respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 175 of 2001 SC No 8689 of 1998
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal - Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered 23 October 2001 Further Order delivered 26 October 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 August 2001
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Holmes J Further Order of the Court
FURTHER ORDER:	1. That the matter be remitted to the Trial Division for determination of the issues arising on the pleadings between the first defendant, the second defendant and the third party. 2. That order 2 of orders made 23 October 2001 be varied as follows: "2. Set aside the following orders made below: (a) orders 1, 2 and 3 made 6 December 2000; (b) orders 1 and 2 made 12 December 2000."
COUNSEL:	J A Griffin QC with B G Cronin for appellants D J Campbell for first respondent No appearance for second respondent R J Douglas SC with B J Clark for third respondent
SOLICITORS:	Walsh & Partners (Gold Coast) for appellants J J Riba & Company (Maroochydore) for first respondent No appearance for second respondent C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor for third respondent