High Court of Australia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
see UNETED,. NOMINIONS... CORPORATION...
Judgment delivered at.
25 June 1976
RM74/30574
CREDIT RENOVATIONS PTY. LIMITED
Vv.
UNITED DOMINIONS CORPORATION LIMITED
ORDER
Appeal allowed.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland varied as follows:
In lieu of the order of Lucas J., order that the plaintiff recover against the defendant $71,910 and that the defendant do pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application for summary judgment to be taxed. Further order that the defendant be allowed to defend as to the residue of the plaintiff's claim, subject to such orders as a judge may make under O. 18 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Queensland.
Remit the appellant's application for summary judgment to the Supreme Court for further consideration of the' question what further orders, if any, should be made under 0. 18.
No order as to the costs of the appeal.
z
JUDGMENT
CREDIT RENOVATIONS PTY. LIMITED
UNITED DOMINIONS CORPORATION LIMITED
GIBBS J.
CREDIT RENOVATIONS PTY. LIMITED
Vv.
UNITED DOMINIONS CORPORATION LIMITED
The respondent is the plaintiff in an action com- menced against the appellant in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 27th June 1975. The writ was specially endorsed with a claim for $78,852.69, being the principal and interest due to 27th June 1975 under four bills of mortgage executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent. There was a further claim for interest from the date of the writ to judgment or earlier payment. The appellant entered an appearance and the respondent thereupon applied on summons, supported by affidavit, for summary judgment under 0. 18, r. 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant filed an affidavit in opposition but Lucas J., before whom the application came, gave judgment for the respondent for $78,948.27. An appeal has been brought to this Court from that judgment. The appeal involves no question of principle, and would more appropriately have been brought to the Full Court of the Supreme Court.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate