LM Investment Management Ltd v Drake (No 2)
[2020] QSC 19
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- LM Investment Management Ltd v Drake (No 2)[2020] QSC 19
- Add to List
LM Investment Management Ltd v Drake (No 2)[2020] QSC 19
LM Investment Management Ltd v Drake (No 2)[2020] QSC 19
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | LM Investment Management Ltd (receivers and managers appointed)(in liquidation) v Drake & Ors [2020] QSC 19 |
PARTIES: | LM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 077 208 461 AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF THE LM FIRST MORTGAGE INCOME FUND ARSN 089 343 288 (plaintiff) v PETER CHARLES DRAKE (first defendant) and LISA MAREE DARCY (second defendant) and EGHARD VAN DER HOVEN (third defendant) and FRANCENE MAREE MULDER (fourth defendant) and JOHN FRANCIS O'SULLIVAN (fifth defendant) and SIMON JEREMY TICKNER (sixth defendant) and LM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUUIDATION) ACN 077 208 461 (seventh defendant) and KORDA MENTHA PTY LTD ACN 100 169 391 IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE LM MANAGED PERFORMANCE FUND (eighth defendant) |
FILE NO/S: | BS12317/14 |
DIVISION: | Trial Division |
PROCEEDING: | Application for costs |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 28 February 2020 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Written submission provided 29 November 2019 |
JUDGE: | Jackson J |
ORDER: | The order of the Court is that:
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – where the seventh defendant applied (informally) for an order that the plaintiff pay the seventh defendant’s costs of the proceeding – where the seventh defendant contends that the costs were properly incurred in defending the proceeding – where the plaintiff made no submissions as to the costs of the seventh defendant – where the court ordered that the costs of the proceeding should follow the event. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681 LM Investment Management Ltd (receiver appointed) (in liquidation) v Drake & Ors [2019] QSC 281 |
SOLICITORS: | Gadens for the plaintiff Russells Law for the seventh defendant |
Jackson J:
- [1]On 22 November 2019, the court gave judgment in the proceeding dismissing the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants.[1] The trial had proceeded against the first to fourth and sixth defendants. It did not proceed against the fifth defendant because he was not served. It did not proceed against the seventh defendant either, because the claim against the seventh defendant was deleted from the statement of claim.
- [2]As to the seventh defendant, LMIM by the liquidators was involved in the proceeding until 28 April 2016. On that date, the court ordered that the liquidators and the solicitors for the seventh defendant be excused from further appearances.
- [3]Prior then, the seventh defendant had been involved in a number of steps, including filing a defence. However, by April 2016, it appeared that LMIM was not insured and the proceeding against it did not continue.
- [4]On 29 November 2019, the seventh defendant applied (informally) for an order that the plaintiff pay the seventh defendant’s costs of the proceeding. By written submission, the seventh defendant contends that it remains a party to the proceeding and that it had, by the liquidators, properly incurred costs in defending the proceeding.
- [5]The seventh defendant submits that in circumstances where the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, including for reasons pleaded in the seventh defendant’s defence as appropriate, the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the seventh defendant’s costs.
- [6]Following receipt of the seventh defendant’s application, the court enquired whether the plaintiff intended to make any submissions as to costs of the seventh defendant. The plaintiff replied that it did not.
- [7]In my view, in those circumstances, r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”) applies. The costs of the proceeding should follow the event. No reason to make another order has been advanced by the seventh defendant or the plaintiff.
Footnotes
[1]LM Investment Management Ltd (receiver appointed)(in liquidation) v Drake & Ors [2019] QSC 281.