LM Investment Management Ltd (receiver apptd) (in liq) v Drake (No. 2)
[2020] QSC 311
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 (receiver apptd) (in liq) v Drake (No. 2)[2020] QSC 311
- Add to List
LM Investment Management Ltd (receiver apptd) (in liq) v Drake (No. 2)[2020] QSC 311
LM Investment Management Ltd (receiver apptd) (in liq) v Drake (No. 2)[2020] QSC 311
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | LM Investment Management Ltd (receiver apptd) (in liq) v Drake & Ors (No. 2) [2020] QSC 311 |
PARTIES: | LM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 077 208 461 AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF THE LM FIRST MORTGAGE INCOME FUND ARSN 089 343 288 (applicant) v PETER CHARLES DRAKE & ORS (first respondent) and LISA MAREE DARCY (second respondent) and EGHARD VAN DER HOVEN (third respondent) and FRANCENE MAREE MULDER (fourth respondent) and SIMON JEREMY TICKNER (fifth respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | BS No 1146 of 2020 |
DIVISION: | Trial Division |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 7 October 2020 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
JUDGE: | Callaghan J |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant made an application for judicial advice as to whether to proceed with appeal of trial judgment – where respondent submitted that the Court should decline to provide any advice – where Court subsequently declined to give advice – whether costs of the application of both parties should be paid from the assets of the Fund on an indemnity basis |
COUNSEL: | D O'Brien QC with M Jones for the applicant JW Peden QC with D Clarry for the liquidator No appearances by the respondents |
SOLICITORS: | Gadens Lawyers for the applicant Russells for the liquidator No appearances by the respondents |
- [1]After delivering this decision on 28 August 2020, I invited written submissions on the question of costs.
- [2]Both the receiver and the liquidator, whose relationship was discussed in my decision,[1] filed in accordance with my directions. The receiver took no issue with the proposition that the costs of the liquidator should be paid from the assets of the fund on an indemnity basis, and sought the same order for himself.
- [3]At the same time, the liquidator filed an affidavit which exhibited copies of correspondence between him and the receiver. This exchange was enkindled by the liquidator with a tendentious letter sent at midday on Sunday, 30 August 2020. It challenged certain positions adopted by the receiver, and demanded explanations for decisions made in the course of the litigation before Jackson J.
- [4]I was troubled to learn how anything in this letter or those that followed could ever have been thought relevant to the question of costs in this application. My concerns were compounded when I read the submissions which accompanied the affidavit. These said, simply:
“1. The liquidator and receiver agree as to the order that, subject to the exercise of the Court’s discretion of course, the liquidator’s costs be calculated on the indemnity basis and paid from the LM First Mortgage Income Fund (Fund).
2. As for the applicant’s costs, the Liquidator takes a neutral position.”
- [5]As is apparent, there was no need for such a submission to be supported by any affidavit material, still less by anything resembling that which was filed.
- [6]Upon enquiry, I was informed that the affidavit was filed prior to the parties’ positions being reached. It is difficult to conjure any reason why the issues could not have been approached in a different order. An apology was extended for the “inconvenience”, but it required little thought, and only a hint of moderation, to reach the position as expressed in the submissions of counsel.
- [7]In accordance with those submissions, I order that the costs of both the receiver and the liquidator in this application be paid from the assets of the Fund on an indemnity basis.
- [8]It should be clear, however, that nothing in the application required the production of the affidavit of Stephen Charles Russell sworn 7 September 2020, nor of the correspondence exhibited thereto.
Footnotes
[1]LM Investment Management Ltd (receiver apptd) (in liq) v Drake & Ors [2020] QSC 265 at [3].