Cathedral Place Developments Pty Ltd v Global Network Communications & Ors [2000] QSC 258

Ilci'AitTF,o,m Ot';usnn ~ r r~ State Reporting Bureau1====--==I~ I.____T-- _______________________________________ I TRAi'JSCRIPT 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 DOUGLAS J Application No S2693 of 2000 CJI_THEDRAL PLACE DEV~LOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 975 870 316 and GLOBAL NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD ACN 082 039 423 and HUGH BEGG and JOHN NGATAI BRISBANE .. DATE 29/05/2000 JUDGMENT 1 - REVISED COPIES iSSUED State Reporting Bureau Date.;?S to6 I oo Plaintiff First Defendant Second Defendant Ith Floor, The L:iw Courts, Ccoq_:c Strccl, llrish:tnt!, Q. 4001) Tdt!phonc: (07) 3247 4360 F:1x: (117) JZ-n 55J Z -- 1 of 3 -- 29052000 T l/BW13 M/T 6496/2000 (Douglas J) HIS HONOUR: In this case there is an application by the plaintiff for judgment in default against the first defendant for breach of contract of sale of land, and is against the second defendants for failure to perform their obligations under the guarantee and indemnity executed as part of the contact. Objection is taken on the basis that the document served 10 upon the defendants by the respective process servers although formal in nature did not bear the Court's stamp or 20 any indication that they had been issued out of this Court. The documents were served on 28 March with respect to the second defendant, Begg, on 27 March with respect to the first defendant and on 30 March with respect to the second defendant Ngatai. 30 They, through their agent one Finch contacted their solicitor who advised her to contact the solicitors for the plaintiff regarding the defects in the claim and the statement of claim. This ad•,ice was given in or about late April 2000. Apparently no action was taken and Mr Marshall was ultimately given instructions to resist this application on 24 May 2000. The defendants do not dispute the substance of the plaintiff's claim against them. The point taken is only the irregularity, if there was one, with respect to service. I say, if there was one, because the affidavits of the various process servers reveal that the documents they say they 2- JUDGMENT 40 50 60 -- 2 of 3 -- 29052000 T l/BW13 M/T 6496/2000 (Douglas J) served upon the defendants were in fact stamped. If there was an irregularity as is submitted, there is a general power to deal with such a failure to comply with the rules under rule 371 of the civil procedure rules. 10 In my view even though this is an application for default judgment and bearing in mind that the defendants at all times knew that they were in default in respect of (a) the contract, and (b) the guarantee, it would not be just to allow them to take such a point at this stage. In that 20 event then I dispense with the irregularity, if there was one, and I order that the plaintiff have judgment against the first defendant for damages for breach of contract to be assessed, and as against the second defendants for damages to be assessed for ~heir failure to perform their obligations under the Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity executed as part of the contract. Now what do you say about indemnity costs, Mr Sheahan? HIS HONOUR: I order that the defendants pay the applicants 30 40 costs of and incidental to this application assessed on an indemnity basis. so 3 - JUDGMENT -- 3 of 3 --