Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SC No 6593 of 2017
STEPHEN JAMES PARBERY AND MICHAEL ANDREW OWEN IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF QUEENSLAND NICKEL PTY LTD (IN LIQ)
QUEENSLAND NICKEL PTY LTD (IN LIQ) ACN 009 842 068
JOHN RICHARD PARK, KELLY-ANNE LAVINA TRENFIELD & QUENTIN JAMES OLDE AS LIQUIDATORS OF QUEENSLAND NICKEL PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
QNI METALS PTY LTD
ACN 066 656 175
QNI RESOURCES PTY LTD
ACN 054 117 921
QUEENSLAND NICKEL SALES PTY LTD
ACN 009 872 566
CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER
CLIVE THEODORE MENSINK
IAN MAURICE FERGUSON
MINERALOGY PTY LTD
ACN 010 582 680
PALMER LEISURE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 152 386 617
PALMER LEISURE COOLUM PTY LTD
ACN 146 828 122
FAIRWAY COAL PTY LTD
ACN 127 220 642
CART PROVIDER PTY LTD
ACN 119 455 837
COEUR DE LION INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 006 334 872
COEUR DE LION HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 003 209 934
CLOSERIDGE PTY LTD
ACN 010 560 157
WARATAH COAL PTY LTD
ACN 114 165 669
CHINA FIRST PTY LTD
ACN 135 588 411
cold mountain stud pty ltd
acn 119 455 248
alexandar gueorguiev sokolov
sci le coeur de l’ocean
MARCUS WILLIAM AYRES
First Defendant added by counterclaim
Second Defendant added by counterclaim
FRIDAY, 27 JULY 2018
BOND J: In April of this year I made directions concerning disclosure which contemplated these steps:
- The plaintiffs would put forward a detailed proposal on 25 May.
- The defendants would respond in detail on 22 June.
- The parties would meet on 29 June to discuss the proposals.
- On 6 July the parties would notify the Court of the terms of the proposed consent order or file an application to resolve the disputed aspects of the proposal that had been put forward.
The plaintiffs complied with the direction and put forward a detailed proposal. Only desultory response was provided by the defendants.
Essentially, they were taking the view, as expressed in correspondence, that it was premature to deal with disclosure until pleadings had closed and until a recusal application, which had been foreshadowed, was brought and disposed of. It is plain that it did not lie in the mouths of the defendants to take that stance. An order had been made. It had been in place for months. The appropriate response, if the defendants wanted variation, was to approach the court and obtain that variation.
The plaintiffs brought the application for an order, in effect, confirming and making applicable their proposal. There not having been any compliance with orders it was, in my judgment, appropriate for them to treat the entirety of their proposal as ultimately disputed and to seek the order they seek.
In one sense there is much to be said for the proposal from senior counsel for the plaintiffs that I should simply make the order that they seek with a costs order against the defendants and if the defendants ultimately do bring a properly informed mind to bear on the subject matter for disclosure and find that they ought to make some change or that some change is warranted, they can bring an application for variation.
For their part, one of the defendants, Mr Palmer, whose position in relation to all the corporate defendants has been canvassed by me in previous judgments, submits, correctly, that he is – albeit well-resourced – a litigant in person with no legal training. I have, in a previous judgment, described the impact of that consideration on the way in which I ought respond to that position and I take the same view as there expressed.
He says that he had a number of other things on his plate concerning this litigation, namely, the appeal concerning the freezing order and taking steps to take advice and to make decisions consequent upon obtaining advice in relation to a recusal application. He submits, from the bar table, that this is the first occasion where he personally has been involved in addressing the steps that must be taken in disclosure in a way such as my orders have required. It does not appear that those reasons were the reasons that were put forward by him in responding to the plaintiffs’ entreaties. He seeks an adjournment so that he may direct a properly informed mind to the considerations which are addressed by the plaintiffs’ application. The other defendants join with him on that application. It transpires that I can hear that application on Friday morning, 3 August 2018.
The choice then is between making an order now and putting the defendants in a position to bring an application for variation or simply staying my hand on the question of what order should be made in disclosure until 3 August which is only a week hence. I think the latter course is appropriate. However, the plaintiffs should be held harmless so far as the costs are concerned.
I will adjourn the plaintiffs’ application until 3 August 2018 at 10 am before me. The defendants must pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the adjournment. Otherwise the question of the costs of the plaintiffs’ application are reserved to be dealt with on 3 August 2018. My reasoning for preferring adjournment is to ensure that in this complex litigation I actually receive assistance from the defendants as to the appropriate steps to be taken in relation to disclosure. Those are the orders I make on the disclosure application.
- Published Case Name:
Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd
- Shortened Case Name:
Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd (No 5)
 QSC 177
27 Jul 2018
|Event||Citation or File||Date||Notes|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 231||17 Oct 2017||Application by defendant Mr Palmer for Bond J to recuse himself; application for an adjournment of the plaintiffs' application for a freezing order; both applications dismissed: Bond J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 125||25 May 2018||Application to stay orders made in  QSC 107 for 21 days dismissed, save for orders 16 and 17 which are stayed until further order: Bond J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 107||25 May 2018||Upon undertakings made by the Commonwealth, and the special purpose liquidators, freezing orders made with respect to the first, second, fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, fourteenth and fifteenth defendants: Bond J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 141||11 Jun 2018||Stay of operation of orders 16 and 17 ordered 25 May 2018 discharged; order 16 set aside and in lieu thereof order that each defendant must swear an affidavit setting out their assets and details about those assets: Bond J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 176||27 Jul 2018||Defendants' agitation that nothing should be determined until a proposed recusal application heard and determined rejected: Bond J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 177||27 Jul 2018||Plaintiffs' application for disclosure adjourned to 3 August 2018: Bond J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 178||03 Aug 2018||Defendants' application for a stay of orders dismissed: Bond J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 180||03 Aug 2018||Plaintiffs' application for disclosure granted: Bond J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 213||17 Sep 2018||Application that Bond J recuse himself granted; proceedings transferred to Jackson J and other ancillary orders: Bond J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 240||22 Oct 2018||Defendants' application (except the fourth, twentieth and twenty-first defendants) for leave to proceed with the counterclaim dismissed (except counterclaim not struck through); plaintiffs' application for defence and counterclaim to be struck out granted with leave; defendants' application for strike-out of the consolidated statement of claim allowed in part; hearing adjourned to a date to be fixed; costs reserved: Jackson J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 245||26 Oct 2018||Defendants' applications for recusal of Jackson J filed 19 October 2018 commence instanter; applications for recusal of Jackson J be adjourned to 1 November 2018 and ancillary directions: Jackson J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 249||05 Nov 2018||Application that Jackson J recuse himself from hearing the trial of the proceeding granted on the ground of apprehended bias (dismissed on the ground of actual bias); application that Jackson J recuse himself from taking any further part in the proceeding, including any interlocutory applications, dismissed: Jackson J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 276||21 Nov 2018||Defendants' applications to vacate orders made in  QSC 176 and  QSC 180 dismissed in substance; extended times for directions for discovery and evidence made: Jackson J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 48||11 Mar 2019||Defendants' application to increases the scope of disclosure and for extensions of time for the delivery of lay and expert evidence dismissed: Jackson J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 207||23 Aug 2019||First, second, seventh, fifteenth, sixteenth and twenty-second defendants' application for either a permanent stay of this proceeding as an abuse of the process of the court or a stay pending the final determination of proceeding BS13947/18: application dismissed: Mullins J.|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 143||03 Jun 2020||Plaintiffs' claims against the seventh defendant, Mineralogy Pty Ltd, to recover alleged funds loaned from Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd to Mineralogy Pty Ltd dismissed; declared that various transactions entered into by Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd are voidable under s 558FE of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (as uncommercial transactions) together with declaratory relief that the transactions are void ab initio: Mullins J.|
|QCA Interlocutory Judgment|| QCA 139||26 Jun 2018||Fourth defendant's application to stay orders made in  QSC 107 allowed in part and otherwise dismissed: Gotterson JA.|
|QCA Interlocutory Judgment|| QCA 287||23 Oct 2018||Application for a stay of the orders made by Bond J in  QSC 180 dismissed: Philippides JA.|
|Notice of Appeal Filed||File Number: Appeal 11834/17||10 Nov 2017||Appeal from  QSC 231|
|Notice of Appeal Filed||File Number: Appeal 7119/20||30 Jun 2020||Appeal from  QSC 143.|
|Appeal Discontinued (QCA)||File Number: Appeal 11834/17||22 Feb 2018||Appeal from  QSC 231 dismissed by consent.|
|Appeal Determined (QCA)|| QCA 268||12 Oct 2018||Costs judgment from fourth defendant's application to stay certain orders ( QSC 176;  QSC 178) that was earlier dismissed (after having been abandoned one day prior): Morrison JA.|
|Appeal Determined (QCA)|| QCA 302||05 Nov 2018||Appeals from  QSC 178 and  QSC 213 dismissed with costs: Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Boddice J.|
|Appeal Determined (QCA)|| QCA 324||20 Nov 2018||Costs judgment from defendants' application to stay certain orders  QSC 125 that was earlier dismissed by consent: Gotterson JA.|
|Appeal Determined (QCA)|| QCA 27||22 Feb 2019||Appeals from  QSC 107 (freezing orders) dismissed: Fraser and Gotterson and McMurdo JJA.|