McCann v MC Property Investments Pty Ltd
[2009] QDC 311
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
- McCann v MC Property Investments Pty Ltd[2009] QDC 311
- Add to List
McCann v MC Property Investments Pty Ltd[2009] QDC 311
McCann v MC Property Investments Pty Ltd[2009] QDC 311
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Lurlene Ann McCann & Jonathon Ross Dakers & others v MC Property Investments Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 311 |
PARTIES: | Lurlene Ann McCann & Jonathon Ross Dakers & Others (Appellant) AND MC Property Investments Pty Ltd(Respondent) |
FILE NOS: | 123/09 |
DIVISION: | District Court at Maroochydore |
PROCEEDING: | Originating Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Maroochydore District Court |
DELIVERED ON: | 18 September 2009 (reasons formally published 5 October 2009) |
DELIVERED AT: | Maroochydore |
HEARING DATE: | 18 September 2009 |
JUDGE: | Judge J.M. Robertson |
ORDER: | The Court has jurisdiction to determine the vendors claim for specific performance. |
CATCHWORDS: | Legislation: District Court of Queensland 1967 (Qld) Cases Considered: MFT Holding Pty Ltd v Booth [2003] QDC 344 Pepper Finance Corporation Ltd v VG Products Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 254 |
COUNSEL: | Mr. A. Evans for the Applicants Mr. L. Nevison for the Respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Ray Barber Solicitor for the Applicants Ferguson Cannon Lawyers for the Respondent |
- [1]The respondent MC Properties is seeking specific performance of a contract dated 10.01.2008 for the purchase of Lot 1 in a development at Mooloolah known as “Seaside on the Lake”. On the 18.09.09 when the matter came on for hearing, Mr. Evans for the purchasers Lurlene McCann and Jonathon Dakers submitted that this Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the application because the respondent’s application, if successful, will require his client to pay the purchase price of $500,000. I heard submissions on the jurisdiction issue and decided that the Court did have jurisdiction. The application was then adjourned to a fixed date to enable the purchasers to be properly prepared to argue the merits. I indicated to Mr. Evans that I would deliver reasons for holding that the Court has jurisdiction and these are my reasons.
- [2]The respondent’s application for specific performance was filed on 19.08.09. Earlier applications filed by the purchasers for declarations and injunctive relief have been adjourned earlier on the basis of consent orders.
DISCUSSION
- [3]The District Court derives its jurisdiction from statute and in particular s.68 of the District Court of Queensland 1967. Jurisdiction to hear and determine actions for specific performance is governed by s.68(1)(b)(iii) which is (relevantly) in these terms:
“(1)The District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine
…
- (b)actions and matters…
…
- (iii)for specific performance of an agreement for the sale or other disposition of land or an interest in land or of any other property, where the value of the land or interest or property does not exceed the monetary limit, or in lieu of or in addition to specific performance, damages not exceeding the monetary limit;”
…
“Monetary limit” means $250,000: s.68(2) and
…
“(3)For the purposes of determining whether or not the District Court has jurisdiction under this part –
…
- (b)in the case of proceedings falling within subsection (1)(b)(iii), (xi) or (xii)--the value of land shall be the most recent valuation, current at the time of instituting the proceedings, made by the chief executive (of the department within which the Valuation of Land Act 1944 is administered) under the Valuation of Land Act 1944, or, if there is no such valuation in respect of the land, the current market value at that time of the land exclusive of improvements thereto;”
- [4]Annexed to Mr. Barber’s (solicitor for vendor) affidavit filed by leave on the 18.09.09 is a copy of a rate notice from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council showing the valuation of the property at $53,389.
- [5]For the purposes of his argument Mr. Evans accepted that this would satisfy the requirements of s.68(3)(b).
- [6]Given the concession, it is difficult to see how it could be successfully maintained that this Court does not have jurisdiction.
- [7]His argument (based on a decision of Judge Hall in MFT Holding Pty Ltd v Booth [2003] QDC 344) is that as the amount of money “being sought” by the application is in excess of the monetary limit, therefore the Court does not have jurisdiction.
- [8]MFT Holding Pty Ltd v Booth does not support Mr. Evans’s argument. Accepting as correct that in that case the “value” of the property did exceed the monetary limit, Judge Hall’s declaration of jurisdiction was based correctly on the cause of action, namely the forfeiture of a sum of money being the deposit paid which did not exceed the monetary limit. In that case the claim was not for specific performance.
- [9]s.68(1)(b)(iii), (2) and (3)(b) of the Act when read together clearly directs the Court, in determining jurisdiction for an action for specific performance, to the unimproved value of the land. This is the approach adopted by Judge Robin Q.C. in Pepper Finance Corporation Ltd v VG Products Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 254.
- [10]There is no substance at all in Mr. Evan’s argument. The Court has jurisdiction to determine the vendors claim for specific performance.
- [11]As the transcript reveals, I ordered that the purchasers pay the vendor’s costs thrown away as a result of the appearance on the 18th September.