Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

State of Queensland v Wenton Australia Enterprises Pty Ltd

 

[2002] QSC 38

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

MUIR J

No S5515 of 1999

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Plaintiff

and

 

WENTON AUSTRALIA ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

First Defendant

and

 

ANTHONY JAMES EDDLESTON

Second Defendant

and

 

WENDY MICHELLE EDDLESTON

Third Defendant

BRISBANE

DATE 31/01/2002

REASONS

HIS HONOUR: I hate the idea of dragging this thing out. By and large, no good ever comes of postponing a decision, particularly one like this, but in circumstances where there is a serious allegation against a party of being in breach of an order of the Court, and that breach is relevant to the application, it seems to me that I ought to at least give the applicant an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the share transfer before I make a final decision in this matter. It is plain to me that is a matter which is of some relevance to the outcome of the application.

Related to that, I am concerned that the evidence of the accountant, Mr Bartley, may not be based on complete knowledge of the actual financial affairs of the first defendant, and in that I include the trust of which it is trustee.

I consider it desirable that there be an explanation by a person with actual knowledge of matters such as the expenditure of the sum of $9,000, if that has taken place, the asset represented by the Harley Davidson motorcycle (it seems that there may be confusion on the third defendant's part about the motorcycle which she refers to in her affidavit), the missing bank statements and the lack of funds with which to fund the litigation.

I intimate that subject to being satisfied about these matters, my current inclination is that the order should be relaxed to some extent to fund the action, but on terms that moneys be paid into the trust account and only be able to be released after notice to the solicitors for the plaintiff and on production of proper accounts.

HIS HONOUR: I adjourn this application to 9 a.m. tomorrow morning and reserve the costs.

MR CAMPBELL: Thank you, your Honour.

MR SOFRONOFF: Your Honour, could I add one further condition to any order that your Honour might think fit to make in due course, and that is that Wenton submit to the same Mareva injunction.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Mr Campbell? There can't be much of a problem about that, can there, having regard to the parlous state of its resources. You will need to get instructions about that.

MR CAMPBELL: I will need to get instructions.

HIS HONOUR: That would seem to me to be an entirely sensible proviso.

MR CAMPBELL: Yes. The result may be though to effectively prevent Wenton from trading even in the limited manner it is at the moment, which is why—

HIS HONOUR: Well, I wouldn't contemplate making an order that it couldn't continue to trade in the normal course, if it is in fact trading.

MR CAMPBELL: Yes. Thank you, your Honour. I will think about it.

HIS HONOUR: Depending on how you go with your affidavit material, you might think of drafting an order and showing a copy of the draft to the other side.

MR CAMPBELL: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: By tomorrow morning.

MR CAMPBELL: Thank you, your Honour.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    State of Queensland v Wenton Australia Enterprises Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    State of Queensland v Wenton Australia Enterprises Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2002] QSC 38

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Muir J

  • Date:

    31 Jan 2002

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status