SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND"

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Highvic Pty Ltd & Ors v Quarterback Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] QSC 8 HIGHVIC PTY LTD (Applicant/First Plaintiff) AND BRIAN FRANCIS GEANEY (Second Plaintiff) AND JOHN JOSEPH GEANEY (Third Plaintiff) V QUARTERBACK GROUP PTY LTD (Respondent/First Defendant) AND DARYL JAMES FENNELL (Second Defendant) FILE NO/S: S375/2011 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Trial Division Application Supreme Court Rockhampton DELIVERED ON: 1 February 2012 DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton HEARING DATE: 30 January 2012 JUDGE: ORDER: McMeekin J The Applicant to bring in a minute of the Order reflecting these reasons CATCHWORDS: EQUITY EQUITABLE REMEDIES INJUNCTIONS INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE GENERALLY where accountants appointed receivers and managers pursuant to securities where the resolution of the issues turns on the validity of securities where there is

2 2 COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: dispute about who should control the sale and proceeds of land where if the land was peremptorily sold the potential damages would be difficult to quantify where the right to exercise the power of sale, the amount of the debt, the amount presently due and owing and the interest payable is in issue where adequate protection is in issue Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r468 American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 Chisholm v Reif (1953) 2 FLR 211 Dwyer v Corliss & Anor [2003] QSC 149 Glandore Pty Ltd v Elders Finance and Investment Co Ltd (1984) 4 FCR 130 Harvey v McWatters (1948) 49 SR (NSW) 173 Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank (1972) 126 CLR 161 AM Arnold for the applicant DEF Chesterman for the respondent Johnson Law for the applicant Nicholsons Solicitors for the respondent [1] McMeekin J: Highvic Pty Ltd ( Highvic ) has brought two applications for interlocutory injunctions to issue until trial: (a) to restrain two named accountants from acting as its receiver manager; (b) to restrain Quarterback Group Pty Ltd (Quarterback) from exercising a claimed power of sale over certain land owned by Highvic. [2] Quarterback appointed the accountants as the receivers and managers of Highvic pursuant to powers contained in certain securities. The validity of those securities is in contest. Similarly the power of sale is claimed under those disputed securities. [3] In any application for an interlocutory injunction there are three issues is there a serious question to be tried; does the balance of convenience favour the granting of the injunction; are damages an adequate remedy? [4] The disputing natural persons are Mr Brian Geaney and his brother John on the one hand and Mr Daryl Fennell on the other. Mr Fennell controls Quarterback and Messrs. The Geaneys now control Highvic. All the shares in Highvic are owned by Days Road Investments Pty Ltd. The shares in Days Road Investments Pty Ltd ( Days Road ) are owned equally by the Geaney brothers and Mr Fennell. Serious Question to be Tried?

3 3 [5] It is plain that there is a serious question to be tried. That is so whether the test be as set out in Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 or in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396. See Shercliff v Engadine Acceptance Corp Pty Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 729. [6] The resolution of the issues turns on the validity of the disputed securities. [7] If the securities were put in place by Mr Fennell fraudulently or in breach of fiduciary and other duties owed, as the Geaneys allege, then they will be set aside and Quarterback would have no right to appoint a receiver manager and no right to sell up Highvic s land. [8] The disputed securities include a loan agreement, a mortgage and a fixed and floating charge over Highvic s assets. The loan agreement asserts that the presently outstanding debt owing by Highvic was in excess of $1.25M. The applicant asserts that the debt is substantially overstated. The Geaneys have retained an independent accountant to work out the amounts each of the venture partners are owed. He has had to make assumptions about various matters and relied to some extent on instructions that may not be agreed. His workings suggest that the debt may be overstated by as much as $670,000. The debt is said to be immediately due and owing contrary to the previous arrangements between the parties which provided for debts to be met only at the conclusion of the venture. There is no right of set off or counterclaim against the debt. Interest at 5% is said to be due with a penalty interest of 10%. The prior arrangements had no interest owing on monies advanced by the parties to the joint venture. The securities result in Quarterback ranking ahead of the other parties in retrieving any money from the venture, again contrary to prior arrangements. [9] Hence the terms of each of the documents provides a significant financial advantage to Quarterback and is against the interests of Highvic and the Geaneys. Each document was executed by Mr Fennell and only Mr Fennell, he purporting to act on behalf of both sides of the transaction in his then capacity of director of both companies. There is no contemporaneous and unequivocal document showing that the Geaneys knew of and consented to the transactions. [10] Mr Fennell claims that the documents were executed following discussion and agreement between the three parties. The Geaneys claim there was no such agreement and to have no knowledge of the execution of the disputed documents until informed subsequently. Mr Fennell put at the forefront of his case that at least Mr Brian Geaney could be shown to know about the disputed arrangements because Mr Fennell wrote him a letter at the time, in February 2009, setting out the effect of the discussions he claims took place. The letter on its face was sent to a Post Office box address which the Geaneys assert did not exist until over a year after the letter was supposedly sent. If that is shown to be true then the date on the letter cannot be accurate and a strong inference could be drawn that the letter is a forgery. Mr Fennell s credit then would be seriously undermined. And Quarterback s case depends, not solely but to a very large extent, on his credit. [11] I have not sought to set out the full arguments on each side. That is not necessary at this stage. There are difficulties in the Geaneys position. At the very least they appear to have stood by knowing that a mortgage was in place from April 2009.

4 4 The issues are complicated by the very close relations that existed between the parties at that time. [12] Here, without in any sense deciding the issues, the respondent faces some difficulties. Mr Fennell has put in place documentation and securities which on their face assert the existence of a debt well in excess of any amount that an apparently independent accountant can justify; gave to his corporate entity a significant financial advantage in documents executed on both sides of the transaction by himself where normal practise and common sense would require that the parties to be disadvantaged be involved; advances no contemporaneous documents to support his version save the letter that I have mentioned and that letter, on the present evidence, is quite possibly a forgery; and finally the claimed reason for the Geaneys conceding these significant advantages is not, on its face, compelling. The justification for the alleged agreed change in arrangements was that Mr Fennell was advancing significantly greater capital than the others. The accountant s workings indicate that all three have advanced significant monies and while Mr Fennell appears at this stage to have advanced more than the Geaney interests the difference does not compel the view that the Geaneys would have willingly given up so much. [13] I appreciate that the evidence is far from complete and the parties have had limited time to prepare. Nonetheless the applicant has in place a case that is far from weak. Suffice to say that there is evidence, if accepted, that would result in the applicant s case succeeding. The case is not speculative. There is then the necessary prospect of success at a sufficient level to justify the granting of injunctive relief. The first test is satisfied. Balance of Convenience [14] The question of balance of convenience has caused me most concern. [15] This case is out of the ordinary. Both sides want to see the land in question sold and the venture brought to an end. Their dispute is about who should control that sale and the proceeds from it, not whether it should happen. [16] The applicant says that there are potentially substantial costs to all parties that would inevitably flow from the appointment of a receiver and manager. First, it is virtually inevitable that the sale price achieved would be substantially less once the public are aware that receivers are in place and controlling the sale. Secondly, the parties would have to bear the cost of the receiver managers. I have no evidence about that latter cost. [17] Mr Brian Geaney who has 30 years experience as a real estate agent says that typically a sale under the control of a receiver achieves a sale price 10% to 20% less than in a market not so affected. He asserts, without any corroborating evidence, that the land in question is worth in excess of $6M. Despite that lack of corroboration there is no evidence to put against his views. A potential shortfall of $1.2M is plainly significant. [18] The respondent argues that there are significant disadvantages to it if an independent person is not appointed to conduct the sale. First, there is no guarantee that the Geaneys will act expeditiously. Secondly, the Geaneys, it is said, will have

5 5 access to the proceeds of sale and will or may use those proceeds to fund the action against the respondent in the proceedings that are on foot. Thirdly, there is no trust between the parties. The implication is that the proceeds of sale would not be applied as they ought to be. As supporting the respondent s stance Mr Fennell points out that there have been share transactions carried out which have every appearance of an attempt to remove him from the share register of Days Road without his knowledge or consent. The Geaneys explain that the entries on ASIC records were undertaken in error and have since had them reversed. It was, at the very least, a most unfortunate error. Whatever be the case I can well understand that there is no trust between the parties. [19] There is a further concern on the respondent s side. It is submitted that no worthwhile undertaking as to damages is offered. Undertakings have been offered on behalf of Highvic and by Mr Brian Geaney, but limited to his interest in Highvic. The Geaneys contend that there is sufficient value in the lands held by Highvic to pay out all creditors secured and unsecured and as well provide a profit to the parties. Mr Chesterman of counsel, who appeared for the respondent, submitted that if there is indeed ample money in Highvic after the sale of its land, there would be little point to the present dispute. He points out too that it is not known whether any undertaking from the Geaneys has any value as they have not disclosed their personal circumstances. [20] The applicant retorts that the law requires only that the applicant offers the necessary undertaking and that has been done. The applicant has offered more effectively giving the Fennell interests access to Mr Brian Geaney s share of the eventual proceeds. [21] Even if the Geaneys have no other assets outside the Highvic venture I do not think it right to say that the undertakings offered are worthless. If the undertaking is extended to both Geaney interests then it provides the same protection to Quarterback as is offered by the disputed securities access in priority to the Geaneys to the proceeds of sale of the Highvic land. There remains the additional prospect of incurring significant costs in this litigation. At this stage the Geaneys have been reluctant to offer an open undertaking affecting their own personal interests beyond their interest in Highvic. Whilst the Geaneys are not applicants it is very much in their interest to have the injunctions granted. Their approach ignores the central importance of the undertaking to give the respondent access to a right to damages if it later turns out that the injunctions should not have been granted: see Chisholm v Reif (1953) 2 FLR 211. [22] As I have mentioned the applicant s case is not speculative and raises matters that will require some explanation from the respondent. The strength of the applicant s case can be relevant to the balance of convenience: Dwyer v Corliss & Anor [2003] QSC 149 per Holmes J, as her Honour then was. Damages an Adequate Remedy? [23] It is debateable whether this is in fact an independent criterion that needs to be satisfied or merely one factor that goes to the balance of convenience: see the discussion in Meagher, Gummow and Lehane s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies at [21-375] p 783 (4 th edn).

6 6 [24] The potential damages that the applicant and hence the Geaneys might suffer if the land is peremptorily sold up by the receiver manager would be very difficult to quantify. It would require a comparison of the price that would be achieved in the hypothetical market of a sale without a receiver involved and alternatively as in fact obtained. Such relief would at the least be very uncertain and unsatisfactory. Payment into Court [25] The respondent contended that it was a mortgagee and the usual rule applicable in cases where a mortgagor sought to restrain a mortgagee exercising powers of sale under its security should be applied namely that sufficient monies to secure the debt be paid into court as a condition of any relief citing Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank (1972) 126 CLR 161; Harvey v McWatters (1948) 49 SR (NSW) 173; Glandore Pty Ltd v Elders Finance and Investment Co Ltd (1984) 4 FCR 130. [26] While a rule of that sort is well accepted it is important to understand why it is imposed and why this case differs form those cases in which it has been invoked. In Inglis Walsh J said at p165, after referring to the general rule: If the debt has not been actually paid, the Court will not, at any rate as a general rule, interfere to deprive the mortgagee of the benefit of his security, except upon terms that an equivalent safeguard is provided to him, by means of the plaintiff bringing in an amount sufficient to meet what is claimed by the mortgagee to be due. [27] That general rule, as Mr Chesterman acknowledged, is not applied where what is impugned is the validity of the mortgage transaction itself: Harvey v McWatters where Sugerman J held that in such a case (which he termed the second class of case) the terms as to payment into court may be moulded so as to require payment in of so much only as will suffice to give adequate protection to the mortgagee. [28] In Glandore Morling J considered that the facts before him were more akin to that second class of a case that Sugerman J had discussed and he concluded (at p135): I am not constrained by authority to require the applicants to pay into court the whole amount of the mortgage debt as a condition of obtaining interlocutory relief. Rather I think the proper approach is to mould an order so as to ensure adequate protection to the mortgagee and to otherwise do justice between the parties He required that no monies be paid into court in respect of the principal debt but required that the applicants pay the amount of unpaid interest and expenses owed to the mortgagee, holding that it was not right that Glandore should have the use of the respondent s money without paying interest on it. There it was common ground that Glandore would pay interest and expenses incurred by the mortgagee as a condition of having the use of its money. [29] The facts here are very different to those in the cases cited. Not only is the right to exercise the power of sale in issue but so is the amount of the debt, the claim that any amount is presently due and owing at all, and the claim that any interest is payable. In the cases cited there was at least no issue about the fact of there being presently due and owing a significant sum and that interest was intended by both parties to be paid on it. [30] The issue then is what is adequate protection in all the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the need to do justice between the parties. To my mind adequate

7 7 protection to the claimed mortgagee can be provided by the undertakings that I will impose as a condition of any relief. Orders [31] The considerations here are finely balanced. Given the potentially substantial and adverse impact on the parties fortunes if the sale is conducted by a receiver manager, no matter how competent, the balance seems to me to favour finding another approach and granting relief of the nature sought. I think that the answer to the concerns of the respondent is that they can be met by the imposition of appropriate conditions on the grant of injunctive relief. [32] It may be that one of the significant differences between the approaches of the parties is in the timing of the sale of the properties. Reference was made on the respondent s side to a concern that the Geaneys, who control Highvic, may not proceed with due dispatch. The Geaneys seem concerned that market conditions are not ideal. I propose placing the sale of the Highvic properties under the control of an experienced agent, hopefully acceptable to the parties, who can no doubt offer appropriate advice. I will give no direction that the sales occur within any particular time frame. With the approach I intend to take the air of compulsion surrounding a sale pursuant to an exercise of power of sale in a mortgage may be removed. [33] I propose to grant the injunctions sought until trial or further order but subject to the following conditions: (a) That each of Highvic Pty Ltd, Brian Francis Geaney and John Joseph Geaney provide the usual undertaking as to damages; (b) That each of the parties undertake not to further encumber the Highvic properties without the written consent of the others; (c) That the interim orders concerning the management of the rental accounts concerning 235 Musgrave Street and 237 Victoria Place Rockhampton remain in place; (d) That the parties place the management of the sale of the Highvic properties with a licensed real estate agent to be agreed by the parties or failing agreement to be determined by the receiver manager; (e) That the parties prepare written instructions for the appointed agent concerning the terms of sale of the Highvic property, there being no reference to the disputed appointment of the receiver manager in those instructions and, failing agreement, that those instructions for sale be determined by the receiver manager; (f) That the proceeds of the sale of the Highvic properties be received by the appointed agent and placed by him or her in a trust account and paid out only with the written consent of each of the parties. [34] A submission was made that the trial of the matter should be expedited (see r468 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999). I agree. I have no information concerning the state of preparedness of the parties. Subject to the execution of a request for trial date and the receipt of any further submissions I direct that the proceedings be heard in Rockhampton in the week commencing 26 March [35] The costs of the two applications are reserved.

8 8 [36] There should be liberty to apply. [37] I direct that the applicant bring in a minute of the orders to reflect these reasons.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Ireland v Trilby Misso Lawyers [2011] QSC 127 PARTIES: COLIN LEO IRELAND Applicant V TRILBY MISSO LAWYERS Respondent FILE NO/S: SC 24 of 2011 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Caratti v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCA 754 File number: NSD 792 of 2016 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 29 June 2016 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE application

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Forsyth & Ors v Big Gold Corporation Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2017] QSC 314 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 9817 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ALEXANDER CAMERON FORSYTH (first plaintiff)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: David & Gai Spankie & Northern Investment Holdings Pty Limited v James Trowse Constructions Pty Limited & Ors [2010] QSC 29 DAVID & GAI SPANKIE & NORTHERN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Queensland Nickel Sales Pty Ltd v Glencore International AG & Anor [2016] QSC 269 QUEENSLAND NICKEL SALES PTY LTD (applicant) v GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Perpetual Limited v Registrar of Titles & Ors [2013] QSC 296 PARTIES: PERPETUAL LIMITED (ACN 000 431 827) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Gladstone & District Leagues Club Ltd v Hutson & Ors [2007] QSC 010 GLADSTONE & DISTRICT LEAGUES CLUB LIMITED ACN 010 187 961 (applicant) v ROBERT HUTSON

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Burragubba & Anor v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines & Anor (No 2) [2017] QSC 265 ADRIAN BURRAGUBBA (first applicant) LINDA BOBONGIE, LESTER BARNADE,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Nadao Stott v Lyons and Stott (as executors) [2007] QSC 087 PARTIES: NADAO STOTT (under Part IV, sections 40-44, Succession Act 1981) (applicant) AND FILE NO/S: BS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Mowen v Rockhampton Regional Council [2018] QSC 44 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: S449/17 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: BEVAN ALAN MOWEN (Plaintiff) v ROCKHAMPTON

More information

Court Appointed Receiverships and Corporations

Court Appointed Receiverships and Corporations Court Appointed Receiverships and Corporations Talk presented to IPA NSW Study Group James Hamilton 17 March 2011 Topics Examples of court appointed receiverships Who can be appointed How are they appointed

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: BS9739 of 2006 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: International Cat Manufacturing Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Rodrick & Ors (No 2) [2013] QSC

More information

CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS IN LAND WHEN TO LODGE AND HOW TO REMOVE PRESENTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2014 NICHOLAS JONES, BARRISTER

CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS IN LAND WHEN TO LODGE AND HOW TO REMOVE PRESENTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2014 NICHOLAS JONES, BARRISTER CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS IN LAND WHEN TO LODGE AND HOW TO REMOVE PRESENTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2014 BY NICHOLAS JONES, BARRISTER POWER TO LODGE A CAVEAT 1. Section 89(1) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 provides

More information

[2009] QSC 262 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION DAUBNEY J. No 6855 of 2009 GREEN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

[2009] QSC 262 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION DAUBNEY J. No 6855 of 2009 GREEN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [2009] QSC 262 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION DAUBNEY J No 6855 of 2009 RE: GREEN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED GRANT THORNTON (QLD) PTY LTD (ACN 091602247) Applicant and GREEN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau State Reporting Bureau 1^003] QSC. M-G Queensl Government Department of Justice Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be

More information

Judgment delivered on the 21st day of February locations throughout Australia but, so far as relevant here, at its office at 345 Queen

Judgment delivered on the 21st day of February locations throughout Australia but, so far as relevant here, at its office at 345 Queen IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Brisbane CA No 10157 OF 2002 Before McPherson JA Davies JA Philippides J [St George Bank Ltd v McTaggart & Ors; [2003] QCA 59] BETWEEN AND AND AND ST

More information

J U L Y V O L U M E 6 3

J U L Y V O L U M E 6 3 LEGAL MATTERS J U L Y 2 0 1 6 V O L U M E 6 3 For a contract to be considered valid and binding in South Africa, certain requirements must be met, inter alia, there must be consensus ad idem between the

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Port Ballidu Pty Ltd v Mullins Lawyers [2017] QSC 91 PARTIES: PORT BALLIDU PTY LTD ACN 010 820 185 (plaintiff) v MULLINS LAWYERS (third defendant) FILE NO/S: No 7459

More information

Shortfalls on Sale. Toby Watkin

Shortfalls on Sale. Toby Watkin Shortfalls on Sale Toby Watkin 1. In this paper I wish to discuss some issues and considerations which arise when it is expected that there will be a shortfall upon a sale of the mortgaged property following

More information

SOME CURRENT PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION INTRODUCTION

SOME CURRENT PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION INTRODUCTION 900 UNSW Law Journal Volume 32(3) SOME CURRENT PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION THE HON JUSTICE KEVIN LINDGREN * I INTRODUCTION I have been asked to write about some current practical issues

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED CLAIM NO. 145 of 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 BETWEEN BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED Claimant AND 1. KEITH ARNOLD First Defendant 2. PHILIP ZUNIGA Second Defendant 3. SHIRE HOLDINGS LIMITED

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Ericson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 297 IAN JAMES ERICSON (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND 3. No SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Civcrush Pty Ltd v Yeo & Co Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) & Anor [2017] QSC 225 PARTIES: CIVCRUSH PTY LTD ACN 603 902 692 (applicant) v YEO & CO PTY LTD

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau J2O03] osc State Reporting Bureau Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not

More information

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Case Name: Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 1) Medium Neutral Citation: [2018] NSWCA 128 Hearing Date(s): 15 June 2018 Date of Orders: 15 June 2018 Date of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Maclag (No 11) P/L & Anor v Chantay Too P/L (No 2) [2009] QSC 299 PARTIES: MACLAG (NO 11) PTY LTD ACN 010 611 631 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BURNS FAMILY TRUST (first plaintiff)

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau State Reporting Bureau jsbo?t] (3SC 34 Queensland Government Department of justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Newspapers P/L [2005] QCA 145 MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS (applicant/respondent) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY (first

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Zen Ridgeway Pty Ltd v Adams & Anor [2009] QSC 117 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 4565/09 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ZEN RIDGEWAY PTY LTD as trustee for THE LEE FAMILY TRUST ACN 109

More information

CONCERNING CONCERNING. MR PAIGNTON of Auckland DECISION

CONCERNING CONCERNING. MR PAIGNTON of Auckland DECISION LCRO 222/09 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 2 BETWEEN MR BALTASOUND

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: In the matter of: ACN 103 753 484 Pty Ltd (in liq) formerly Blue Chip Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 64 TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE AND DAVID MICHAEL

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 3696 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Midson Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Drakos & Anor v Keskinides [03] QCA 9 PARTIES: HAROLD STANLEY DRAKOS and CONSTANTINE GEORGE CASTRISOS trading under the name, firm or style of H. DRAKOS & COMPANY,

More information

OS 17/01: GST and costs associated with mortgagee sales

OS 17/01: GST and costs associated with mortgagee sales OS 17/01: GST and costs associated with mortgagee sales Introduction Operational statement 15/01 has been reviewed with regard to a mortgagee who is subject to the business to business financial services

More information

The Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning AARON MURRAY LESSING.

The Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning AARON MURRAY LESSING. 2012 LSBC 19 Report issued: May 28, 2012 Citations issued: March 23, 2011 and July 28, 2011 The Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Donovan v Donovan [09] QSC 26 PARTIES: LYNDA JANE DONOVAN (AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD JOSEPH DONOVAN) (applicant/cross-respondent) v HELGA DONOVAN (AS EXECUTOR

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Gemini Nominees Pty Ltd v Queensland Property Partners Pty Ltd ATF The Keith Batt Family Trust [2007] QSC 20 PARTIES: GEMINI NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 011 020 536) (plaintiff)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cousins v Mt Isa Mines Ltd [2006] QCA 261 PARTIES: TRENT JEFFERY COUSINS (applicant/appellant) v MT ISA MINES LIMITED ACN 009 661 447 (respondent/respondent) FILE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd and Anor [2014] QSC 30 CONVEYOR & GENERAL ENGINEERING PTY LTD ACN 091 865 235 (Applicant)

More information

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Waterman & Ors v Logan City Council & Anor [2018] QPEC 44 NORMAN CECIL WATERMAN AND ELIZABETH HELEN WATERMAN AS TRUSTEE UNDER INSTRUMENT

More information

Goods Mortgages Bill [HL]

Goods Mortgages Bill [HL] Goods Mortgages Bill [HL] CONTENTS PART 1 INTRODUCTORY 1 Overview PART 2 CREATION OF GOODS MORTGAGES Goods mortgages 2 Goods mortgages 3 Goods mortgages: co-owners 4 Qualifying goods Requirements to be

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: LQ Management Pty Ltd & Ors v Laguna Quays Resort Principal Body Corporate & Anor [2014] QCA 122 LQ MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 074 733 976 (first appellant) LAGUNA

More information

PARADISE TIMBERS PTY LTD APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT

PARADISE TIMBERS PTY LTD APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT PARADISE TIMBERS PTY LTD ABN 41 010 596 353 P O Box 3230 HELENSVALE TOWN CENTRE QLD 4212 128 Millaroo Drive GAVEN QLD 4211 Accounts: accounts@paradise-timbers.com.au Sales: sales@paradise-timbers.com.au

More information

Case Name: 7895 Tranmere Drive Management Inc. v. Helter Investments Ltd.

Case Name: 7895 Tranmere Drive Management Inc. v. Helter Investments Ltd. Case Name: 7895 Tranmere Drive Management Inc. v. Helter Investments Ltd. Between 7895 Tranmere Drive Management Inc., plaintiff, and Helter Investments Limited, defendant And between Helter Investments

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau [233 QSC >86 Queensl Government Department of Justice Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: DT & MF Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 611 700 746 & others v Ascendia Accountants (Noosa) Pty Ltd ACN 123 735 393 & others [2017] QSC 330 PARTIES: DT & MF HOLDINGS PTY LTD

More information

PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW

PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW 25 May 2002 PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW TEXT OF ARTICLES IN PART 3 IN ENGLISH 1 ENGLISH TEXT CHAPTER 10 Plurality of parties Section 1: Plurality of debtors ARTICLE 10:101: SOLIDARY, SEPARATE AND

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau State Reporting Bureau Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau [sooi] asc 07} State Reporting Bureau Queensland Government Department of justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BANANA ENTERPRISES LIMITED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BANANA ENTERPRISES LIMITED CLAIM NO. 400 OF 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 BETWEEN: BANANA ENTERPRISES LIMITED Claimant AND NOVA TOLEDO LIMITED PROVIDENT BANK AND TRUST OF BELIZE LIMITED Defendant Interpleader Claimant

More information

CENTRAL & EASTERN TRUST CO. v. IRVING OIL LTD. et al.

CENTRAL & EASTERN TRUST CO. v. IRVING OIL LTD. et al. CENTRAL & EASTERN TRUST CO. v. IRVING OIL LTD. et al. Supreme Court of Canada, Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ. April 22,1980. Corporations - Transfer of shares - Corporation

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Dariush-Far v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2018] QCA 21 ALEXANDER HAMID DARIUSH-FAR (applicant) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT

More information

Goods Mortgages Bill

Goods Mortgages Bill CONTENTS PART 1 INTRODUCTORY 1 Overview PART 2 CREATION OF GOODS MORTGAGES Goods mortgages 2 Goods mortgages 3 Goods mortgages: co-owners 4 Qualifying goods Requirements to be met in relation to instrument

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Hayes v Hayes [2015] QSC 88 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 12260 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: RICHARD NEIL HAYES (Plaintiff) v SUSAN WENDA HAYES as Executor

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 12888 of 2008 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Taylor v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2011] QSC 8 SYLVIA PAMELA TAYLOR (appellant)

More information

Companies Act No. 10 of Certified on: / /20. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. No. 10 of ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS.

Companies Act No. 10 of Certified on: / /20. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. No. 10 of ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Companies Act 1997 No. 10 of 1997. Companies Act 1997. Certified on: / /20. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. No. 10 of 1997. Companies Act 1997. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. 1. Compliance with Constitutional

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: S5736 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDINGS: ORIGINATING COURT: Atlantic 3-Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd v. Deskhurst Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] QSC 130 ATLANTIC 3-FINANCIAL

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Schepis & Anor v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd & Anor [2007] QCA 263 PARTIES: ANTHONY SCHEPIS (first plaintiff/first appellant) MICHELE SCHEPIS (second plaintiff/second

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Witheyman v Van Riet & Ors [2008] QCA 168 PARTIES: PETER ROBERT WITHEYMAN (applicant/appellant) v NICHOLAS DANIEL VAN RIET (first respondent) EKARI PARK PTY LTD ACN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Doolan and Anor v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty Ltd and Ors [07] QSC 68 SANDRA DOOLAN AND STEPHEN DOOLAN (applicants) v RUBIKCON (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 099 635 275 (first

More information

Spark & Cannon s Terms of Sale Agreement

Spark & Cannon s Terms of Sale Agreement ABN 37 007 916 056 ACN 007 916 056 www.sparkandcannon.com.au 1300 502 819 Spark & Cannon s Terms of Sale Agreement 1. Definitions Account Holder means You, provided you have completed a Credit Application

More information

Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes

Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Brenda Tronson Barrister Level 22 Chambers btronson@level22.com.au 02 9151 2212 Unreasonableness In December, Bromberg J delivered judgment in

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: National Australia Bank Limited v Murphy & Anor [2018] QSC 106 PARTIES: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED ACN 004 044 937 (plaintiff) v JOHN PAUL MURPHY (first defendant)

More information

Papua New Guinea Consolidated Legislation

Papua New Guinea Consolidated Legislation 1 of 229 07/10/2011 13:13 Home Databases WorldLII Search Feedback Papua New Guinea Consolidated Legislation You are here: PacLII >> Databases >> Papua New Guinea Consolidated Legislation >> Companies Act

More information

Bankruptcy, financial agreements and the rights of creditors

Bankruptcy, financial agreements and the rights of creditors BA NKRUP T C Y A ND I NS O L V ENC Y Bankruptcy, financial agreements and the rights of creditors J A CK Y CA MPB EL L, A PRI L 2 0 1 6 The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Grainger & Bloomfield

More information

Body Corporate Plan No. PS509946A v VM Romano Construction Group Pty Ltd & Anor (Domestic Building) [2009] VCAT 1662

Body Corporate Plan No. PS509946A v VM Romano Construction Group Pty Ltd & Anor (Domestic Building) [2009] VCAT 1662 VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D679/2007 CATCHWORDS Whether leave to withdraw earlier admissions should be granted APPLICANT FIRST

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Togito Pty Ltd v Pioneer Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2011] QSC 21 TOGITO PTY LTD (plaintiff) v PIONEER INVESTMENTS (AUST) PTY LTD (first defendant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Taylor v Company Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 309 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 12009 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: DAVID JAMES TAYLOR, by his Litigation Guardian BELINDA

More information

RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR (DIRECT)

RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR (DIRECT) RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-000662-MR (DIRECT) INTREPID INVESTMENTS, INC. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2008-485-562 BETWEEN AND JANICE MARY MENERE, RUPERT OLIVER SMITH AND KELLEE ANN MENERE Plaintiff JACKSON MEWS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Defendant Hearing:

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: D322/08 PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Body Corporate for Sunseeker Apartments CTS 618 v Jasen [2009] QDC 162 BODY CORPORATE FOR SUNSEEKER APARTMENTS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Balson v State of Queensland & Anor [2003] QSC 042 PARTIES: FILE NO: SC6325 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: CHARLES SCOTT BALSON (plaintiff/respondent)

More information

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ANGUILLA AXAHCVAP2013/0010 In the Matter of the Companies Act (c. C65) In the Matter of Leeward Isles Resorts Limited (In Liquidation) BETWEEN: [1]

More information

TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES. LTC Harms Japan 2017

TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES. LTC Harms Japan 2017 TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES LTC Harms Japan 2017 SOURCES INTERNATIONAL: TRIPS NATIONAL Statute law: Copyright Act Trade Marks Act Patents Act Procedural law CIVIL REMEDIES Injunctions Interim injunctions Anton

More information

APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS

APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS These Trading Terms and Conditions are to be read and understood prior to the execution of the Application for Commercial Credit Account.

More information

Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand 28 November 2016

Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand 28 November 2016 Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand 28 November 2016 Case Number: D-1119 Member: Anthony Christopher Matthews, FCA Hearing Date: 24 May and 10

More information

Re Armstrong, Deceased [1960] VicRp 34; [1960] VR 202 (19 December 1958)

Re Armstrong, Deceased [1960] VicRp 34; [1960] VR 202 (19 December 1958) Re Armstrong, Deceased [1960] VicRp 34; [1960] VR 202 (19 December 1958) Re ARMSTRONG, deceased SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA HERRING, CJ 4, 19 December 1958 Herring, CJ, delivered the following written judgment:

More information

A submission from the Litigation Lawyers Section of the Law Institute of Victoria (LIT.13)

A submission from the Litigation Lawyers Section of the Law Institute of Victoria (LIT.13) Submission Litigation Lawyers Section Review of Litigation Funding in Australia To: Standing Committee of Attorneys-General A submission from the Litigation Lawyers Section of the Law Institute of Victoria

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D TRADE WINDS LIMITED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D TRADE WINDS LIMITED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2016 CLAIM NO. 166 of 2016 TRADE WINDS LIMITED CLAIMANT AND INTERESORTS INVESTMENT NV DEFENDANTS BECTIVE OVERSEAS PROJECTS LIMITED REGISTRAR, LAND TITLES UNIT INTERESTED

More information

BRIEFING JANUARY 2016

BRIEFING JANUARY 2016 BRIEFING C L E A R E R S K I E S A H E A D : T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L R E V I E W S T H E E X T E N T O F A M O R T G A G E E S D U T I E S O N S A L E O F A D I S T R E S S E D A S S E T JANUARY

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 13832/10 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Queensland Harness Racing Limited & Ors v Racing Queensland Limited & Anor [2012] QSC 34 QUEENSLAND HARNESS RACING

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau [2.003] 0 SC 056 State Reporting Bureau Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must

More information

Tort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration

Tort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration Tort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration Immigration Law Conference, Sydney 24-25 February 2017 1. The focus of immigration law practitioners

More information

Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014

Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 Examinable excerpts of Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 as at 10 April 2018 Schedule 1 Legal Profession Uniform Law 169 Objectives PART 4.3 LEGAL COSTS Division 1 Introduction The objectives

More information

Before : MR JUSTICE KNOWLES CBE Between : (1) C1 (2) C2 (3) C3. - and

Before : MR JUSTICE KNOWLES CBE Between : (1) C1 (2) C2 (3) C3. - and Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 1893 (Comm) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT Case No: CL-2015-000762 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 29/07/2016

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Vadasz v Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 261 MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER VADASZ TRADING AS AUSTRALIAN PILING COMPANY

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: BS 7979 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: National Australia Bank Ltd v Bluanya Pty Ltd & Anor [2018] QSC 49 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED ABN 12 004

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Mayfair Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Southland Packers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] QSC 145 MAYFAIR PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (plaintiff) v SOUTHLAND PACKERS PTY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 45 of 2008 BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLANTS AND SUMAIR MOHAN RESPONDENT PANEL: A. Mendonça,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Spain v Commonwealth of Australia [2015] QSC 258 PARTIES: ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN (plaintiff) v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (defendant) FILE NO: 2923 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Tynan & Anor v Filmana Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2015] QSC 367 PARTIES: DAVID PATRICK TYNAN and JUDITH GARCIA TYNAN (plaintiffs) v FILMANA PTY LTD ACN 080 055 429 (first

More information

THE SECOND LIMB OF BARNES V ADDY

THE SECOND LIMB OF BARNES V ADDY THE SECOND LIMB OF BARNES V ADDY Introduction The second limb of Barnes v Addy 1 provides a cause of action against persons who provide knowing assistance to a trustee or fiduciary who dishonestly and

More information

Insolvency & Restructuring

Insolvency & Restructuring Newsletter August 2017 Insolvency & Restructuring Liquidator s Dilemma Recovery Action and Security for Costs Introduction Liquidators may often consider it necessary to bring proceedings on behalf of

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Blue Chip Development Corporation (Cairns) Pty Ltd v van Dieman [2009] FCA 117 PRACTICE & PROCEDURE legislative scheme for progress payments under construction contracts challenge

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: O Keefe & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2016] QCA 205 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE O KEEFE (first appellant) NATHAN IRWIN (second appellant)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION. Before: MR. JUSTICE LIGHTMAN. - and -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION. Before: MR. JUSTICE LIGHTMAN. - and - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION HC0C00 [001] EWHC 1 (CH) Royal Courts of Justice Thursday, th May 00 Before: MR. JUSTICE LIGHTMAN B E T W E E N: HURST Claimant - and - LEEMING Defendant

More information

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International Inc. and Summerside Seafood Supreme Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International Inc. and Summerside Seafood Supreme Inc. SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Summerside Seafood v. Gov PEI 2012 PESC 4 Date: January 30, 2012 Docket: S1-GS-20942 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International

More information

Supreme Court New South Wales

Supreme Court New South Wales Supreme Court New South Wales Case Name: Munsie v Dowling (No. 7) Medium Neutral Citation: Munsie v Dowling (No. 7) [2015] NSWSC 1832 Hearing Date(s): 30 November 2015 Date of Orders: 4 December 2015 Date

More information

RESCISSION 1. Seminar, College of Law, Sydney, 10 March Edmund Finnane 2

RESCISSION 1. Seminar, College of Law, Sydney, 10 March Edmund Finnane 2 RESCISSION 1 Seminar, College of Law, Sydney, 10 March 2009 Edmund Finnane 2 1 RESCISSION - AT LAW AND IN EQUITY The term rescission is used in various senses, but in its narrow sense the term is concerned

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Jensen v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2006] QSC 027 PETER JENSEN (applicant) v QUEENSLAND LAW

More information