Bannister v Healey & Anor (No 3)
[2013] QDC 248
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
- Bannister v Healey & Anor (No 3)[2013] QDC 248
- Add to List
Bannister v Healey & Anor (No 3)[2013] QDC 248
Bannister v Healey & Anor (No 3)[2013] QDC 248
[2013] QDC 248
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 3805 of 2011
| NIKKI BANNISTER | Plaintiff |
| and | |
| DENNIS ALAN HEALEY and ANOTHER | Defendant |
BRISBANE
10.55 AM, TUESDAY, 23 JULY 2013
JUDGMENT
| CATCHWORDS | Judgment against added defendant upon failure to make agreed payments under a compromise the defendant bound herself to - she was not permitted to reopen that issue Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r658 |
HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. It advances matters beyond the stage they reached on the 23rd of May this year before me. The active respondent is Ms Lindeblad, given that Mr Healey is bankrupt. She resists the proposal realised in the order that judgment be entered against her but in my view is not entitled to do so given that I disposed against her of questions as to whether she ought to – she bears any liability to the plaintiff or ought even to be a party in the proceeding. Those views were not challenged on appeal and cannot be revisited today. See [2013] QDC
The applicant is doing no more than that to take advantage of her entitlement under a compromise agreement which I decided on the last occasion is good as against Ms Lindeblad to have judgment entered in light of the respondents’ failure to make a payment of $75,000 which ought to have been made by the end of January. The small payments made do not even cover interest at the agreed rate. Rule 658 is ample warrant for the order made today in support of which Mr Fleming QC referred to Warwick v Tankey [2004] QSC 274, In particular in the reasons at paragraph [19] it’s appropriate that the judgment which gives credit for the instalments received include interest at the agreed rate.
I note Ms Lindeblad’s professed concern that the orders made today which continue the freezing order that’s been long in place stand in the way of her continuing to seek a buyer for the vessel, Nitro. Mr Fleming has confirmed that on the basis of proceeds of any sale being subject of the freeze, he and his client would be delighted if a sale eventuated since that might promote her prospects of finally obtaining satisfaction of what’s still owing under the judgment.