Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- Bank of Queensland Limited v Dodrill[2011] QCA 235
- Add to List
Bank of Queensland Limited v Dodrill[2011] QCA 235
Bank of Queensland Limited v Dodrill[2011] QCA 235
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | BANK OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal – Further Orders |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 13 September 2011 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 11 March 2011 |
JUDGES: | Margaret McMurdo P, Muir JA and Daubney J Judgment of the Court |
ORDERS: | 1. The first respondent, Joseph Michael Dodrill, pay to the first appellant, Bank of Queensland Limited, the amount of $310,347.81 and interest of $23,892.52.2. The second respondent, John Anthony Dodrill, pay to the first appellant Bank of Queensland Limited $310,347.81 and interest of $23,892.52. |
CATCHWORDS: | EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – PRIORITY AND NOTICE – PRIORITY – PRIORITY BETWEEN PRIOR LEGAL AND SUBSEQUENT EQUITABLE INTEREST – where the first appellant Bank claimed to be entitled to surplus proceeds of sale of real property at Toowong held in trust by the respondents’ solicitors – where the second appellant receivers claimed an entitlement to the proceeds in their capacity as receivers – where the respondent judgment creditors each claimed to be entitled to half of the moneys because of writs of execution registered over the land prior to its sale – where the respondents were declared to be beneficially entitled to the proceeds at first instance – where this Court set aside those orders and declared that the first appellant was entitled to the whole of the surplus proceeds of sale – where the respondents have filed an application for special leave in the High Court of Australia – where the appellants apply for an order for repayment of those proceeds – whether the respondents should each be ordered to repay their half of the proceeds of sale to the appellants – whether an order should be made for interest claimed |
COUNSEL: | A B Crowe SC, with B T Porter, for the appellants R Perry SC, with C Coulsen, for the respondents |
SOLICITORS: | Dibbs Barker for the appellants Lynch Morgan Lawyers for the respondents |