Rapid Roofing Pty Ltd v Natalise Pty Ltd
[2006] QDC 433
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
- Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- Rapid Roofing Pty Ltd v Natalise Pty Ltd[2006] QDC 433
- Add to List
Rapid Roofing Pty Ltd v Natalise Pty Ltd[2006] QDC 433
Rapid Roofing Pty Ltd v Natalise Pty Ltd[2006] QDC 433
DISTRICT COURT | No 115 of 2002 |
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE McLAUCHLAN QC
RAPID ROOFING PTY LTD | First Plaintiff |
ALLAN LEO GEORGE ERNESTINE AND MARY-ALISE PARQUETTE ERNESTINE | Second Plaintiffs |
and
NATALISE PTY LTD (ACN 094 771 954) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ST ANGE FAMILY TRUST | First Defendant |
JOSE ST ANGE AND MICHELLE ST ANGE | Second Defendants |
BRISBANE
..DATE 08/09/2006
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HIS HONOUR: In this matter I make the following declarations:
- (1)That the first plaintiff has duly performed its obligations in respect of the contract for the sale of machinery entered into on or about July 2001.
- (2)That the second plaintiffs have discharged their obligations under the mortgage given by them to the first defendant and dated 11 July 2001.
I order: (3) The first defendant to provide to the second plaintiffs a discharge of the said mortgage.
- (4)The male second defendant and/or the first defendant to deliver to the first plaintiff the chattels the subject of the two bills of lading other than the listed chattels, which is to say the chattels the subject of the contract of sale, contained in the two containers now held on behalf of the defendants or any of them at the port of Brisbane, subject to the payment by the first plaintiff to the first defendant of all port and other charges and taxes which have been paid or which have accrued in respect of those chattels. On the application of any party I shall direct an account to be taken of all such charges and taxes.
I give judgment: (5) for the first plaintiff against the male second defendant in the sum of $70,000 damages for conversion together with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum pursuant to section 47 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 from 31st December 2001.
- (6)For the second plaintiffs against the second defendants in the sum of $10,290 together with interest at 7 per cent per annum, pursuant to section 47 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 from 31 December 2001.
Declarations (1) and (2) and order (3) are made subject to the Plaintiffs' paying to the first defendant or the second defendants expenses paid by the defendants or any of them associated with the transport of the listed machinery, including freight duties, stowage fees, arrival charges and port charges up to 14 November 2001. The expression “arrival charges” should be construed to include customs duty or similar taxes. On the application of any party I shall direct an account to be taken of all such duties, fees and charges.
The plaintiffs' claim is otherwise dismissed, and the defendants' counterclaim is also dismissed. I publish my reasons.
...
HIS HONOUR: The defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiffs 75 per cent of the costs of the plaintiffs costs of and incidental to the trial to be assessed on the standard basis.
-----