Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

BB Print Pty Ltd v Grafika Links Pty Ltd[2012] QDC 54

BB Print Pty Ltd v Grafika Links Pty Ltd[2012] QDC 54

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

BB Print Pty Ltd v Grafika Links Pty Ltd [2012] QDC 54

PARTIES:

BB PRINT PTY LTD
(Plaintiff)

v

GRAFIKA LINKS PTY LTD
(Defendant)

FILE NO:

DIS-MACK 29/2011

DIVISION:

 

PROCEEDING:

Application for Summary Judgment

ORIGINATING COURT:

Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Mackay

HEARING DATE:

28 March 2012

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

  1. Order the defendant pay to the plaintiff the amount of $160,821.80
  2. Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to these proceedings, including this application to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE – Summary Judgment – where the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending all or a part of the plaintiff's claim

COUNSEL:

P. Travis for the Plaintiff.

The defendant was not represented by Counsel

SOLICITORS:

McKays Solicitors for the Plaintiff.

The defendant company was represented by M. Malone (Director).

  1. [1]
    The respondent is a solicitor practising as the principal of the legal practice which trades under the registered business name Hawthorn Cuppaidge & Badgery.
  1. [2]
    This is an application for summary judgment by the plaintiff against the defendant. The statement of claim filed by the plaintiff claims $160,821.59 for damages for breach of contract against the defendant, or alternatively, restitution. Claims are also made for interest and costs.
  1. [3]
    The basic circumstances behind the litigation between the plaintiff and the defendant is that the plaintiff is a commercial printer in Mackay, and the plaintiff alleges the defendant supplied to it a defective printing machine. The statement of claim also alleges that the machine was so defective it was replaced. However, even the replacement was defective.
  1. [4]
    As a consequence, the plaintiff lost the money it paid to the defendant for the machine and suffered consequential losses. The notice of intention to defend admits a number of paragraphs of the statement of claim, however a large majority of the paragraphs of the statement of claim are not admitted, and a balance of the paragraphs of the statement of claim are denied.
  1. [5]
    However, the defendant has not descended to particularity as to the basis behind making the denials that it has made. The application comes before me today supported by the plaintiff's director who has sworn a substantial affidavit in which the facts alleged in the statement of claim are verified on oath.
  1. [6]
    The plaintiff's director has exhibited a number of documents to his affidavit and has also provided evidence of the consequential losses. They include third party maintenance expenses, overtime paid to the plaintiff's staff, payments to commercial printers, and additional plaintiff costs.
  1. [7]
    The application is apposed by the defendant; I have given leave to the defendant's director, Mr Malone, to represent the company today. However, the defendant has not filed an affidavit in response to the plaintiff's director's affidavit, nor has the defendant filed any affidavit from any other person.
  1. [8]
    The submissions made by Mr Malone who appeared on behalf of the defendant is that this claim has nothing to do with the defendant. That claim is not expressly made in the notice of intention to defend. He also submitted that a lot of the exhibits to Mr Bye's affidavit, the plaintiff's director, are false, and that the defendant has a pretty good case.
  1. [9]
    Certainly, these submissions are not demonstrated by the notice of intention to defend. Mr Malone pointed to a number of documents in the affidavit of Mr Bye and said there are exaggerated claims. The fact remains after having considered the affidavit of Mr Bye and the submissions made by Mr Malone, I am satisfied that the plaintiff's statement of claim is verified on oath, and that there is no triable issues demonstrated by the defendant.
  1. [10]
    Rule 292 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules provides that summary judgment can be given on behalf of the plaintiff if the Court is satisfied the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending all or a part of the plaintiff's claim, and there is no need for a trial of the claim or a part of the claim.
  1. [11]
    As I have, considering all the evidence, I am persuaded, and also having considered the submissions made by Mr Malone, I am persuaded that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the plaintiff's claim, and there is no need for a trial of the claim in this instance.
  1. [12]
    Therefore, I give judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant. Although the sum claimed is $160,822, that seems to be a sum that's rounded up, I'm not sure that we're allowed round up like a supermarket; I think the figure is $160,821.80, and therefore I order the defendant pay to the plaintiff the amount of $160,821.80.
  1. [13]
    I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to these proceedings, including this application to be assessed on the standard basis, there'll be an order as per the draft, initialled by me and left with the papers.
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    BB Print Pty Ltd v Grafika Links Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    BB Print Pty Ltd v Grafika Links Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2012] QDC 54

  • Court:

    QDC

  • Judge(s):

    Samios DCJ

  • Date:

    28 Mar 2012

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.