Glass v Mooloolah Valley Country Club
[1999] QDC 91
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
- Glass v Mooloolah Valley Country Club[1999] QDC 91
- Add to List
Glass v Mooloolah Valley Country Club[1999] QDC 91
Glass v Mooloolah Valley Country Club[1999] QDC 91
DISTRICT COURT | Plaint No 28 of 1999 |
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE DODDS
ANGELA GLASS | Plaintiff |
and
MOOLOOLAH VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB | Defendant |
MAROOCHYDORE
DATE 19/03/99
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: By plaint filed on 23 May 1995 in the District Court at Maroochydore the plaintiff sought damages arising from an alleged breach of an agreement to grant a lease of the kitchen and dining room of the defendant club.
She pleaded that the defendant was estopped from denying there existed a binding agreement in terms of the proposed lease.
By consent the action was transferred to the Magistrates Court in June 1998.
The plaintiff has applied to have the matter transferred back to the District Court Maroochydore. She submits that there is reasonable ground for supposing the relief or remedy sought is not available in the Magistrates Court.
The plaintiff has sought to amend her plaint. The amended pleading is more detailed and sets up a case based upon the principle in Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch 9 and upon a promissory estoppel; Walton's Stores Interstate Ltd v. Maher (1987-8) 164 CLR 387.
The matter is within the monetary jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. The only question is whether the relief or remedy sought is not available in the Magistrates Court. The applicant must establish that to succeed Re Lovell, Supreme Court Queensland unreported 5/8/83 Master Lee; Re Timms, Supreme Court Queensland unreported 3/10/92 MacKenzie J.
Section 4(c) of the Magistrates Court Act 1921 provides that a Magistrates Court has jurisdiction in, “every action in which a person has an equitable claim or demand against another person in respect of which the only relief sought is the recovery of a sum of money or of damages whether liquidated or unliquidated, and the amount claimed is not more than $50,000”. The section is in similar terms to section 68 of the District Courts Act 1967 before the 1989 amendments to the Act, number 40 of 89.
There is a comprehensive discussion about the meaning of a similar provision in what was section 68 of the District Courts Act 1967 in Barbagallo and Another v. J & F Catelan Pty Ltd and Others 1986 1 QdR 243; see the judgments of McPherson J as he then was at pages 254-256, and Thomas J as he then was at pages 265-6, which include reference to the old case of Noagues v. Hope 1874 4 QSCR 57.
In the latter case action was brought in a District Court for damages relying upon an agreement for a lease which was not executed. It was held that the action was an equitable claim for damages recoverable in the District Court pursuant to section 1 of the Equity Procedure Act 1873 the terms of which were, for practical purposes, identical with the then section 68 of the District Courts Act 1967.
In Barbagallo the discussion arose on appeal in the context of a judgment given in the District Court for damages which were for an apprehended future injury to land. Such damages were not available at common law but were available as equitable damages in lieu of an injunction. It was held that the plaintiff's claim for damages which was within the monetary jurisdiction of the District Court was an equitable claim or demand against another person for the recovery of damages within the meaning of section 68 of the District Courts Act.
In Edgar v. Ron Kingham Real Estate Pty Ltd unreported Court of Appeal Queensland 8/8/97, McPherson JA commented that a provision in terms of section 4(c) of the Magistrates Courts Act formally appeared in section 68 of the District Courts Act 1967. The point which led to His Honour's discussing the issue was whether a creditor suing a beneficiary of a trust to recover a sum of money and claiming a right to be subrogated to a trustee's right of indemnity could sue in the Magistrates Court relying upon section 4(c) to found the Court's jurisdiction. His Honour referred to Barbagallo and Noagues and held that section 4(c) provided the jurisdiction. As to a submission that the claim involved the Magistrates Court in making a declaration that the defendant had an obligation to indemnify the trustee, a power which a Magistrates Court did not have, he observed that the Magistrates Court had power to give the forms of relief authorised by the Act, “and for that purpose to make a determination that was within it's jurisdiction -- no declaration -- was needed. The Magistrate correctly applied the law to the facts and -- gave relief in a form that under section 4(c) of the Act it was within the jurisdiction of the Court to grant.” Both Davies JA and Fryberg J agreed.
The relief sought in this case is available in the Magistrates Court. That is not altered because in finding for the relief the Magistrate may apply equitable principles. For instance, a promissory estoppel will include a finding of facts amounting to unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendant. The estoppel will have the effect of preventing the defendant from denying the existence of the agreement pleaded. It will not however, alter the plaintiff's claim from an equitable claim in respect of which the only relief sought is the recovery of damages into a claim for some other equitable relief.
The application is refused with costs.