Babooti Pty Ltd v Watson [1990] QSC 279

10 c 20 1 C' 30 C 40 C ·-· - •• ----. -- ~.~_-! -.-· IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION BEFORE MR. JUSTICE COOPER BRISBANE, 30 JULY 1990 --.-.--:--~,, No. 6524 of 1982 REV!3ED COPIES .ISSUE Court Rep0rting -Bureau Date, a / 8 !C/0 ----,,.-.....---. ... .- .. ----+ (Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Chief Court Reporter,Court Reporting Bureau.) BETWEEN: BABOOTI PTY LIMITED -and- GRAHAM GEORGE WATSON JUDGMENT Plaintiff Defendant HIS HONOUR: In this matter I am satisfied that the defendant Graham George Watson was called and failed to appear and -that the matter is one to which 0.39 r.31 of the Rules of Court apply. I am satisfied, having regard to the contents of the affidavit of Robert Bernard Davis, that the plaintiff has made out its cause of action as pleaded and that it is entitled to forfeit a deposit of $19,000 paid by the defendant under a contract for the sale of a building unit, being Lot 74 on registered plan no. 5369, Vol.6393, Folio 30. The relevant contract of sale is dated 23 November 1982. The right to forfeiture was provided by clause 7 of 10 20 30 40 so so that agreement. I am also satisfied that the plaintiff was entitled to $98,044.77 for damages, including liquidated damages for delays provided for by clause 11 of the agreement for the ___:::_6""-0--+------------------------~-----------' 60 -Glovt. Printer, Qld. 1 -- 1 of 2 -- ,,r--... ( 10 20 30 40 50 60 period 22 September .1982 until the date of resale of the building unit on 16 September 1983 in accordance with the exercise of the powers which the plaintiff had under the said agreement. I am satisfied that for the purpose of clause 11 of the agreement the l.iquidated damages for delay applies for the period until payment, being a payment received by the plaintiff from the new purchaser. I have been asked to grant interest pursuant to s.72 of the Common Law Practice Act in the sum of 18 per cent on the basis that such was an agreed sum. I am not persuaded in all the circumstances the sum of 18 per cent is an appropriate sum. What I propose to do is grant interest at the rate of 12 per cent for a period of three years. There is no material before me to indicate who is responsible for the apparent delay in this matter coming on-for trial;· The writ action was commenced in 1982. The last interlocutory step, other than entry for trial, appears to have taken place in 1985, and so far as I can see from the file, the matter was entered for trial in October last year. In the absence of material explaining the delay, I think a period of three years at 12 per cent on the sum of $75,444.67 is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. I order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the action, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed, and I would ask counsel to have minutes of order prepared and delivered to me which I will initial and place with the file. --vt. Printer, Qld. 2 10 30 0 40 0 so 60 -- 2 of 2 --