Capital at Call Pty Ltd v Toumpas
[2009] QDC 260
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
- Capital at Call Pty Ltd v Toumpas[2009] QDC 260
- Add to List
Capital at Call Pty Ltd v Toumpas[2009] QDC 260
Capital at Call Pty Ltd v Toumpas[2009] QDC 260
[2009] QDC 260
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 1928 of 2008
CAPITAL AT CALL PTY LTD | Plaintiff |
and | |
KATHERINA TOUMPAS and STEPHEN JOHN PAUL MITCHELL | Defendant Defendant |
BRISBANE
DATE 30/06/2009
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: | District Court of Queensland Act 1967 s 85 - Mortgagee's claim for recovery of possession of mortgaged property and a money judgment in excess of the court's jurisdiction by consent transferred to Supreme Court in accordance with compromise of the defendant's application for striking out |
HIS HONOUR: The Court grants leave to Mr Hickey, representing the plaintiff's new solicitors, Elliott May, to read and file counterparts of a "consent order", one signed for his firm, the other signed for the solicitors for the respective defendants, which transfers the proceeding to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 85(2) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967, the parties to bear their own costs.
The plaintiff's original solicitors made what appears to be an egregious error in filing a claim in the District Court which seeks an order for recovery of possession of property and also the sum of $409,653.88 plus interest and costs.
On its face that claim, which is in terms pursued in both the claim and the prayer for relief in the statement of claim, exceeds the monetary limit of the District Court's jurisdiction as it stands at present; this Court could not, in the absence of consent to enlargement of its jurisdiction by the defendants, which isn't forthcoming, have granted that monetary relief.
The defendants have disputed the jurisdiction of Court and the plaintiff, having seen the error of its former ways, accepts that it ought to proceed in the Supreme Court. Subsection (2) authorises a transfer only if its application is not prevented by subsections (4) or (5).
There is no material before the Court to indicate how the mistake happened. More importantly subsections (4) and (5) in the present circumstances ought to be treated as a protection to defendants wrongly brought to this Court. They have taken a cooperative, understanding attitude in the circumstances, not seeking costs and indeed accepting that the parties should bear their own costs of and incidental to the application filed the 9th of June 2009.
That is an application by the defendants for the striking out of the proceeding under section 85(4) and costs, alternatively, a transfer under subsection (2) and costs. The application invited the plaintiff to file a notice abandoning excess. The compromise reached and the way in which it's been brought to the Court's attention ought to be acceded to by the Court.
In the circumstances the parties have limited costs effectively by the arrangement which means that only Mr Hickey turns up today.
...
HIS HONOUR: So the Court will order pursuant to section 85(2) of the District Court of Queensland Act that the proceeding be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane, and that the parties bear their own costs of and incidental to the defendants' application filed the 9th of June 2009.