Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Ruddle
[2015] QSC 239
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
- Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Ruddle[2015] QSC 239
- Add to List
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Ruddle[2015] QSC 239
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Ruddle[2015] QSC 239
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Ruddle and Ors [2015] QSC 239 |
PARTIES: | BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE BANK LIMITED ABN 11 068 049 178 (Plaintiff) v IAN REGINALD RUDDLE (First Defendant) (Second Defendant) (Third Defendant) (Fourth Defendant) |
FILE NO/S: | Brisbane No 3805 of 2015 |
DIVISION: | Trial |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 20 August 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers |
JUDGE: | Boddice J |
ORDER: |
situated at 76 Shipper Drive, Coomera, Queensland 4209 with the appurtenances.
situated at 76 Shipper Drive, Coomera, Queensland 4209. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 913(2) |
COUNSEL: | No appearance for the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s submissions were heard on the papers No appearance for the defendants |
SOLICITORS: | No appearance for the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s submissions were heard on the papers No appearance for the defendants |
- By application filed 28 July 2015, the plaintiff applied for an order that it be given leave pursuant to r 913(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) to issue an enforcement warrant for possession of land situated at 76 Shipper Drive, Coomera in the State of Queensland. The warrant was sought against each of the defendants and the occupants of the land.
- On 23 June 2015 the plaintiff obtained an order for possession of the said land. Despite being served with the order, none of the defendants have complied with the order. It appears a person other than one of the defendants is presently in occupation of the land. The identity of that occupant is unknown.
- The land in question consists of a marina berth and an associated storage shed. It is not residential property. However, as it appears that a person other than one of the defendants is presently in occupation of the land under a lease or tenancy agreement, leave is necessary pursuant to r 913(2) of the UCPR.
- The plaintiff has validly obtained an order for possession of the land. The plaintiff suffers ongoing loss and damage by reason of non-compliance with the order delivering up possession of that land. There is no reason why the plaintiff ought not receive the benefit of that order.
- I am satisfied the plaintiff should be granted leave to issue the enforcement warrant for possession of the said land.
- I am satisfied it is appropriate to determine the application without an oral hearing.
- I make order in terms of the draft which I initial and place with the papers.