Suburban Bowling Club Inc v Suburban Tennis Club Inc
[2002] QSC 132
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
Suburban Bowling Club Inc v Suburban Tennis Club Inc[2002] QSC 132
Suburban Bowling Club Inc v Suburban Tennis Club Inc[2002] QSC 132
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
MUIR J
Town Application No 36 of 2002
SUBURBAN BOWLING CLUB INC IA12391 | Plaintiff |
and |
|
SUBURBAN TENNIS CLUB INC IA12809 | Defendant |
CAIRNS
DATE 26/04/2002
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: In this matter the applicant, Suburban Bowling Club Incorporated, seeks against the respondent, Suburban Tennis Club Incorporated, declarations that an agreement entered into between them on 8 July 1993 was validly terminated, that the respondent has no legal rights to access or occupy certain premises of the applicant, and the applicant is not liable to pay moneys to the respondent as a result of termination of the agreement.
Despite service being effected on the respondent, and considerable steps being taken to ensure that these proceedings were brought to the knowledge of those who may represent the respondent, there was no appearance this morning by the respondent although the matter was called.
I am satisfied, on the material before me, that there were a number of breaches of the agreement of 8 July 1993 which permitted the applicant, provided appropriate notice was given under clause 5(c) of the agreement, to terminate it. The material discloses that such notice was given and that the agreement was accordingly brought to an end.
I mention that the most obvious of the breaches was the failure to pay moneys on account of rates pursuant to clause 4 of the agreement. Another breach which is plainly established was a failure to maintain, under clause 5(c). I am also satisfied that there was a failure to occupy pursuant to clause 5(b).
In those circumstances I have no difficulty in ordering as per the draft initialled by me, which I now do.