Ball v Pacimar Trading Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 566

1 [2004] QDC 566 DISTRICT COURT CIVIL JURISDICTION JUDGE ROBIN QC No 3922 of 2002 TERESITA SALVA BALL Plaintiff and PACIMAR TRADING PTY LTD (ACN 088 074 864) Defendant BRISBANE ..DATE 30/09/2004 ORDER Catchwords: District Court of Queensland Act 1967 s.68, s.69 - consent orders including order for removal of caveat in compromise of proceeding for declarations - amendment of statement of claim required to demonstrate claim fell within court's monetary jurisdiction. WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings. -- 1 of 3 -- 30092004 T01/SAC3 M/T CMS107/2004 (Robin DCJ) 2 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: I have marked Exhibit 1 a document entitled "Consent to Orders" signed by the plaintiff who is not here today and by the defendant's solicitors. Mr Mills assures the Court that the signature purporting to be the plaintiff's is indeed that and that he personally witnessed it applied last week. The document disposes of the whole proceeding, incorporating a provision that it be dismissed with the parties to bear their own costs. It also includes an order for removal of a caveat which Mr Mills tells me is not part of any application. However, if there is a caveat it is obviously caught up in the subject matter of the proceedings and we have the plaintiff's signature to a document inviting the Court to order removal of the caveat. This is enough to bind the parties to get the caveat removed as a matter of contract. I am satisfied that under the ancillary jurisdiction which the Court has under s.69 of the District Court of Queensland Act that order about the caveat can be made. The principal proceeding is clearly one of a kind within the Court's jurisdiction under s.68(1)(b) of the District Court of Queensland Act for a declaration that the plaintiff has a beneficial ownership as to one-half of the property. However, it does not appear on the face of the proceeding that it falls within the monetary limit of the jurisdiction. Unless this is remedied, orders should not be made. ... -- 2 of 3 -- 30092004 T01/SAC3 M/T CMS107/2004 (Robin DCJ) 3 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: I think what I ought to do is order that the statement of claim be amended to add a paragraph 11 as follows: "The value of the property is less than $250,000." ... HIS HONOUR: Further orders by consent as per paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit 1. ----- -- 3 of 3 --