Lee v Quality Bakers Australia Limited
[2000] QCA 285
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Lee v Quality Bakers Australia Limited[2000] QCA 285
- Add to List
Lee v Quality Bakers Australia Limited[2000] QCA 285
Lee v Quality Bakers Australia Limited[2000] QCA 285
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA
AMBROSE J
Appeal No 5237 of 1999
TONY LEE (Plaintiff) Appellant
v.
QUALITY BAKERS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(trading as BUTTERCUP BAKERIES)
(ACN 004 205 449) (Defendant) Respondent
BRISBANE
DATE 21/07/2000
JUDGMENT
DAVIES JA: This matter was heard by a Court consisting of the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Ambrose and me.
- The appeal is allowed.
- Set aside the judgment below, substitute a judgment for the appellant for $231,685.09 with costs and order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
I publish the joint reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice and me and the separate reasons of Mr Justice Ambrose dissenting in part.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning, your Honour. Is it necessary for me to raise questions of any variation in his Honour Judge Wylie's order or is that something I can do at a later time? In terms of offers to settle which impact on any costs order.
DAVIES JA: Do they?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
DAVIES JA: Well-----
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have prepared a schedule of the offers that were made.
DAVIES JA: Well, obviously I can't make any variation in the order. I think the best thing to do might be if - does that involve me vacating that order I made as to costs?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I don't think it does, your Honour. that's something I can take up with my friends here.
DAVIES JA: Well, maybe it does because the order is that the plaintiff have the costs below.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think that is sufficient your Honour because the - this Court's judgment is lower than the plaintiff's offer to settle so that is - that's more than sufficient, thank you.
DAVIES JA: All right.