Asa's Organics Steak Hut P/L v Floor Level Australia P/L [2001] QSC 509

State Reporting Bureau [.;2.roQ QSC 50~ rft'&. Queensland Government ~ Department of justice and Att~y-GerH!ral Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION PHILIPPIDES J No 9361 of 2001 ASA'S ORGANICS STEAK HUT PTY LTD ACN 094 474 718 and FLOOR LEVEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 480 457 782 BRISBANE .. DATE 18/12/2001 JUDGMENT REVISED COPIES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau Dateotl I /.L to I Applicant Respondent th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 1 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 3 -- 18122001 T20/YRL21 M/T 3/2001 (Philippides J) HER HONOUR: I have decided that the application should be dismissed essentially on the basis that with respect to the error in the description of the company, I am of the opinion that nothing flows from that. With respect to the defects 1 in the affidavit, the two that were relied upon, in relation 10 to the first that is a matter of style and no more in relation to paragraph 4. In relation to the failure to depose to there being no / { genuine dispute, I have looked at the authorities. However, ~o' in my opinion, they have to be viewed in the light of the facts of each case, and in this case the surrounding facts are such that I am of the view that there is no substantial injustice that has followed. Much like in Lechner's case (W v. F Lechner P/L Drummond & Rosen P/L [2001] NSWSC 275, the failure to depose to the source of the deponent's knowledge, although in some cases considered to be a serious deficiency, in that case could not be seen as a serious deficiency because all the relevant material was in fact annexed to the affidavit. In this case, in light of the background facts there is no substantial injustice nor is there any other reason to set aside the demand. 2 JUDGMENT 30 50 60 -- 2 of 3 -- 18122001 T20/YRL21 M/T 3/2001 (Philippides J) HER HONOUR: I think the appropriate order is that costs follow the event and therefore the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed. 3 JUDGMENT 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 3 of 3 --