Bannister v Healey (No 3)

[2013] QDC 248

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 3805 of 2011
NIKKI BANNISTER Plaintiff
and
DENNIS ALAN HEALEY and ANOTHER Defendant
BRISBANE
10.55 AM, TUESDAY, 23 JULY 2013
JUDGMENT

CATCHWORDS
Judgment against added defendant upon failure to make agreed payments under a compromise the defendant bound herself to - she was not permitted to reopen that issue
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r658

HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. It advances matters beyond the stage they reached on the 23^rd of May this year before me. The active respondent is Ms Lindeblad, given that Mr Healey is bankrupt. She resists the proposal realised in the order that judgment be entered against her but in my view is not entitled to do so given that I disposed against her of questions as to whether she ought to – she bears any liability to the plaintiff or ought even to be a party in the proceeding. Those views were not challenged on appeal and cannot be revisited today. See [2013] QDC

The applicant is doing no more than that to take advantage of her entitlement under a compromise agreement which I decided on the last occasion is good as against Ms Lindeblad to have judgment entered in light of the respondents’ failure to make a payment of $75,000 which ought to have been made by the end of January. The small payments made do not even cover interest at the agreed rate. Rule 658 is ample warrant for the order made today in support of which Mr Fleming QC referred to Warwick v Tankey [2004] QSC 274, In particular in the reasons at paragraph [19] it’s appropriate that the judgment which gives credit for the instalments received include interest at the agreed rate.

I note Ms Lindeblad’s professed concern that the orders made today which continue the freezing order that’s been long in place stand in the way of her continuing to seek a buyer for the vessel, Nitro. Mr Fleming has confirmed that on the basis of proceeds of any sale being subject of the freeze, he and his client would be delighted if a sale eventuated since that might promote her prospects of finally obtaining satisfaction of what’s still owing under the judgment.

______________________

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bannister v Healey, the plaintiff, Nikki Bannister, sought a judgment against the defendant, Dennis Alan Healey, for a failure to adhere to the terms of a compromise agreement. The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland, with Judge Robin QC presiding over the case. The dispute centred on the enforcement of the compromise agreement, which required Healey to make certain payments to Bannister. Due to Healey's bankruptcy, the court focused on the liability of the second defendant, Ms. Lindeblad, who was bound by the same compromise agreement.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether Ms. Lindeblad was liable to the plaintiff and whether she could be held responsible for the agreed payments, given Healey's bankruptcy. The court had previously ruled on these matters, and Ms. Lindeblad's appeal had been unsuccessful. The current issue was whether the court could enforce the compromise agreement against her, given the respondents' failure to make the agreed payment of $75,000 by the end of January. The court needed to consider the implications of Rule 658 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, which permits the entry of judgment against a party who fails to comply with a compromise agreement.

Judge Robin QC concluded that Ms. Lindeblad was indeed liable for the agreed payments, as she was bound by the compromise agreement. The court cited the precedent in Warwick v Tankey to support its decision. The judgment included interest at the agreed rate for the instalments received, as noted in the case. Additionally, the court acknowledged Ms. Lindeblad's concern about the freezing order's impact on her ability to sell the vessel, Nitro. However, the court noted that any proceeds from the sale would be subject to the freeze, and that a sale might actually improve her chances of satisfying the remaining debt owed to Bannister.

The court ordered the entry of judgment against Ms. Lindeblad in accordance with the initialled draft, advancing the matter beyond the stage reached in May. The court found that Ms. Lindeblad was not entitled to resist the judgment and that the compromise agreement was enforceable against her. The court also noted that the freezing order would remain in place, but any sale proceeds would be subject to the freeze, potentially benefiting Ms. Lindeblad if she could ultimately satisfy the judgment debt.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established