I AM THE LAW
Browse › Case law › Queensland

Amos v GIO General Ltd [1994] QCA 452

Case law · Queensland · 1994
1 [1994]QCA 452 COURT OF APPEAL FITZGERALD P DERRINGTON J CULLINANE J Appeal No 181 of 1994 EDWARD AMOS Appellant and GIO GENERAL LTD Respondent BRISBANE ..DATE 04/10/94 JUDGMENT -- 1 of 3 -- 041094 T 12/MJR M/T COA94/302 JUDGMENT 2 THE PRESIDENT: It is not proposed to discuss the facts of this matter in detail. They are well known to the parties. The case for the applicant for leave to appeal has been put on a variety of bases, firstly in the pleadings in the Magistrates Court; then in the notice of appeal to the District Court and the amendments firstly proposed and secondly allowed to that notice of appeal; in the affidavit in support of the present application for leave to appeal to this Court sworn by the solicitor for the applicant and finally in counsel's argument to this Court. The submission ultimately made is that there is an important question of law involved in the Magistrate's finding that there was no concluded contract between the parties. Alternatively it was submitted that there is an important point of justice involved in that the District Court allowed amendments to the applicant's notice of appeal to that Court which it is said effectively denied the applicant the opportunity fully to argue its case or permitted the summary determination of the appeal to that Court against the applicant. On analysis in my opinion all points ultimately depend upon the finding by the Magistrate that there was no concluded contract between the parties. That is a finding which was based upon the particular circumstances of this case and -- 2 of 3 -- 041094 T 12/MJR M/T COA94/302 JUDGMENT 3 involved no unusual, difficult, or otherwise important question of law. In the circumstances I am satisfied that no basis for leave to appeal has been made out and I would refuse the application. DERRINGTON J: I agree. CULLINANE J: I agree. THE PRESIDENT: The application is refused. Anything to say about costs? MR LENNON: No, Your Honour. THE PRESIDENT: The appellant must pay the respondent's costs to be taxed. ----- -- 3 of 3 --