Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

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

Laguna Quays Resort Principal Body Corporate v Laguna Quays Resort Primary Thoroughfare Body Corporate (No 2)

 

[2013] QSC 308

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

PARTIES:

FILE NO:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane 

HEARING DATE:

21  October 2013

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

Ruling on objections

COUNSEL:

D E F Chesterman for the plaintiff

D R Tucker (Solicitor) for the first defendant

M T de Waard for the second to fourth and sixth to fourteenth defendants

SOLICITORS:

Nicholsons Solicitors for the plaintiff

Tucker & Cowan for the first defendant

McKay Solicitors for the second to fourth and sixth to fourteenth defendants

[1] This is my ruling on objections to certain paragraphs of the affidavit of Ms Roughton filed 26 March 2012.  When these objections were raised on the morning of the hearing, it was resolved that the more efficient course, in terms of saving court time, was for Counsel for the plaintiff to submit a response in writing to the defendants’ objections.  This occurred.  Ms Roughton was not required by the defendants for cross-examination. 

[2] Her affidavit was filed at a time when the plaintiff was seeking appointment of receivers to the first defendant. 

[3] As I have previously stated, the fact that development has occurred on later stages and that issues have arisen over voting entitlements, provides a background to the hearing.  In addition, the fact of development has a relevance to the issue of whether initial plans of subdivision had been lodged. 

[4] As appears from my reasons, I found it unnecessary to refer to the contents of Ms Roughton’s affidavit other than to the extent it provides a background to why disputes over voting entitlements have arisen.  Because of my limited reliance upon it, my rulings on the objections will be necessarily brief.  The plaintiff conceded a number of the objections.

[5] Paragraph 12:  the fact that other body corporate schemes at the same level as Principal within the hierarchy are essentially the commercial arms of the Resort is relevant by way of background.

[6] The plaintiff acknowledges that paragraphs 13 to 16 are not directly relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them. 

[7] Most of paragraph 18 is relevant, by way of background, to explain the genesis of the proceeding and the uncertainty about whether the Marina Precinct which had been operating when Ms Roughton bought her unit in 2002 had voting entitlements. The last sentence of paragraph 18 relates to Ms Roughton’s belief, which is irrelevant and I disregard it.

[8] The first two sentences in paragraph 19 are in the nature of a submission, and I disregard them. The balance of the paragraph has the same relevance as paragraph 18.

[9] Paragraph 20 is relevant.  The existence or not of a body corporate in respect of the Marina Precinct has a potential relevance to voting entitlements, and the final sentence in paragraph 20 explains the genesis of the proceedings.

[10] Paragraph 21 is relevant to the issue of voting entitlements in Stage 2.

[11] Paragraphs 23 to 28 have the same limited relevance as paragraph 20.  The plaintiff accepts that paragraphs 29 to 54 are not directly relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them.

[12] Paragraph 55 has the same limited relevance as paragraph 20. 

[13] The plaintiff accepts that paragraphs 57 to 67 are not relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them. 

[14] The plaintiff accepts that paragraphs 70 to 98 are not relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them.

[15] The plaintiff accepts that paragraphs 100 to 119 are not relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them.

 

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Laguna Quays Resort Principal Body Corporate v Laguna Quays Resort Primary Thoroughfare Body Corporate & Ors (No 2)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Laguna Quays Resort Principal Body Corporate v Laguna Quays Resort Primary Thoroughfare Body Corporate (No 2)

  • MNC:

    [2013] QSC 308

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Applegarth J

  • Date:

    07 Nov 2013

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status