Ball v Pacimar Trading Pty Ltd
[2004] QDC 566
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
- Ball v Pacimar Trading Pty Ltd[2004] QDC 566
- Add to List
Ball v Pacimar Trading Pty Ltd[2004] QDC 566
Ball v Pacimar Trading Pty Ltd[2004] QDC 566
[2004] QDC 566
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 3922 of 2002
TERESITA SALVA BALL | Plaintiff |
and |
|
PACIMAR TRADING PTY LTD (ACN 088 074 864) |
Defendant |
BRISBANE
DATE 30/09/2004
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: | District Court of Queensland Act 1967 s. 68, s. 69 - consent orders including order for removal of caveat in compromise of proceeding for declarations - amendment of statement of claim required to demonstrate claim fell within court's monetary jurisdiction. |
HIS HONOUR: I have marked Exhibit 1 a document entitled "Consent to Orders" signed by the plaintiff who is not here today and by the defendant's solicitors.
Mr Mills assures the Court that the signature purporting to be the plaintiff's is indeed that and that he personally witnessed it applied last week. The document disposes of the whole proceeding, incorporating a provision that it be dismissed with the parties to bear their own costs. It also includes an order for removal of a caveat which Mr Mills tells me is not part of any application. However, if there is a caveat it is obviously caught up in the subject matter of the proceedings and we have the plaintiff's signature to a document inviting the Court to order removal of the caveat. This is enough to bind the parties to get the caveat removed as a matter of contract.
I am satisfied that under the ancillary jurisdiction which the Court has under s. 69 of the District Court of Queensland Act that order about the caveat can be made. The principal proceeding is clearly one of a kind within the Court's jurisdiction under s. 68(1)(b) of the District Court of Queensland Act for a declaration that the plaintiff has a beneficial ownership as to one-half of the property. However, it does not appear on the face of the proceeding that it falls within the monetary limit of the jurisdiction. Unless this is remedied, orders should not be made.
...
HIS HONOUR: I think what I ought to do is order that the statement of claim be amended to add a paragraph 11 as follows:
"The value of the property is less than $250,000."
...
HIS HONOUR: Further orders by consent as per paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit 1.