ABN Amro Morgans Ltd v. Alders & Ors - [2008] QSC 160

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

ABN Amro Morgans Ltd v Alders & Ors [2008] QSC 160

PARTIES:

ABN AMRO MORGANS LTD ACN 010 669 726
(Applicant)
v
JOHN RONALD ALDERS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JOHN ALDERS SUPERANNUATION FUND

STARWINE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 087 876 739 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JOHN RONALD ALDERS SUPERANNUATION FUND

TABLELAND AIR SERVICE PTY LTD ACN 010 742 2002
(First Respondent)

ROBYN ANDERSON
TREVOR JOHN LAWRENCE
(Second respondentS)

MARGARET MARY AZAR
(Third respondent)

TREVOR RICHARD BALL AND KIM ELIZABETH BALL
(Fourth respondents)

ATNONIO BARBAGALLO AND SUSAN RITA BARBAGALLO
(Fifth respondents)

SALVATORE BARBAGALLO AND JACQUELYN BARBAGLLO
(Sixth respondents)

TONY RICHARD BARBAGALLO AND ANNE MARIE BARBAGALLO
(Seventh respondents)

CYRIL TREVOR BOUGOURE
(Eighth respondents)

NORMAN BRAMICH AND PAMELA BRAMICH
(Ninth respondents)

RUSSEL STEWART BRAMICH AND JAQUELLINE BRAMICH
(Tenth respondents)

ROBERT LIONEL BRANDER AND JUDITH NANCY BRANDER
(Eleventh respondents)

WOLFGANG LOTHAR BRETTSCHNEIDER AND RENATE FRIEDA WELHELMINE BRETTSHNEIDER
(Twelfth respondents)

PETER JOHN BURKE AND DENISE CONSTANCE BURKE
(Thirteenth respondents)

KLAUS EMIL CAZZONELLI AND HELMA HELENA CAZZONELLI
(Fourteenth respondents)

LESLEY DAVID COLEMAN AND HAZEL SALAN COLEMAN
(Fifteenth respondents)

COLIN JAMES DALY AND SHELLY JOAN DALY
LACEVIEW PTY LTD ACN 011 059 788
(Sixteenth respondents)

KLAUS DIETER DORRICH AND WENDY DIANNE WIGGINS
(Seventeenth respondents)

SALVATORE GIAMPAOLO AND MARIA GIAMPAOLO
(Eighteenth respondents)

DONALD LYLE GRAHAM AND MARGARET ELIZABETH GRAHAM
(Nineteenth respondents)

ROBERT ANTHONY GROENEWOUD
JOHN ROBERT ANTHONY GROENEWOUD AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DANIELLE MAUREEN GROENEWOUD
(Twentieth respondents)

HEATHER JOAN HORSEMAN
(Twenty-first respondent)

HEATHER JOAN HORSEMAN AND JAN CHRISTINE MCCLANACHAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE WILL OF DAVID RODNEY HORSEMAN, DECEASED
(Twenty-second respondents)

JAMES HORSEMAN AND DAWN OLIVE HORSEMAN
(Twenty-third respondents)

MARK JOHN BRAMMEL JENKINSON AND LYNETTE ELLEN JENKINSON
(Twenty-fourth respondents)

WILLIAM HENRY KIRWAN AND PAMELLA ELLEN KIRWAN

TRINITY CARE ASSOCIATION INC. IA 18259
(Twenty-fifth respondents)

ARTHUR LITSCHI AND MARGUERITE LITSCHI
(Twenty-sixth respondents)

JOHN HENRY LEWIS LLOYD
(Twenty-seventh respondent)

CATHERINE MCKENZIE
(Twenty-eighth respondent)

NEIL WILLIAMS MCLAUGHLIN AND KAREN ELIZABETH COOMBES
(Twenty-ninth respondents)

GONDA MILLS
(Thirtieth respondent)

JOHN ALEXANDERE MONTGOMERY AND ROBYN RAE DESBOIS
(Thirty-first respondents)

ROSEMARY JOY MOUNTNEY
(Thirty-second respondent)

PETER STUART MOWAT
KATHLEEN HELEN MOWAT
(Thirty-third repondents)

ZYGMUNT JOZEF PIETRZAK
(Thirty-fourth respondent)

JOHN POWELL
(Thirty-fifth respondent)

MERVYN JOHN ROBSON AND SHERYL MARGARET BRAUND
(Thirty-sixth respondents)

ROSS SCRIVENER AND NARELLE SCRIVENER
(Thirty-seventh respondents)

TERRY JOHN SKINER AND KERIN ELLEN SKINNER
(Thirty-eighth respondents)

PAUL EDWIN SPICER
JANE SPICER
P.E SPICER PTY LTD ACN 010 669 080
(Thirty-ninth respondents)

BRUCE PHILIP STAUN AND MARION JOAN STAUN
(Fortieth respondents)

EGBERT JAAP VEURMAN
SANDRA JOY VEURMAN
(Forty-first respondents)

BERNARD BRENT WESTON
(Forty-second respondents)

NORMAN JAMES WILKINS AND CARMEN MARIE WILKINS
(Forty-third respondents)

BRIAN JAMES WRIGHT AND ELAINE JOYCE WRIGHT
(Forty-fourth respondents)

KERRY DENYS WRIGHT AND OLIVE JENNIFER WRIGHT
(Forty-fifth respondents)

MARGARET HUBBARD AND WAYNE THOMAS HUBBAND
(Forty-sixth respondents)

ADRIAN PATRICK TELLES AND SHALINI SUSANNA TELLES
(Forty-seventh respondents)

DRURY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(Forty-eighth respondent)

NEWLINE CORPORATE NAME LTD AS DULY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR SYNDICATE 1218 AND LIMIT (NO 3) LTD AS DULY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF SYNDICATE 683
(Forty-ninth respondents)

FILE NO/S:

557 of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading ABN Amro Morgans Ltd v. Alders & Ors

Details

AGLC: ABN Amro Morgans Ltd v Alders [2008] QSC 160
Case: [2008] QSC 160
Decision Date: 25 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ABN Amro Morgans Ltd v. Alders & Ors involved the applicant, ABN Amro Morgans Ltd, seeking leave to discontinue proceedings against multiple respondents in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicants were seeking to discontinue claims against the respondents that had been consolidated in proceeding number 557 of 2007. The legal dispute centred around whether it was appropriate to grant leave to discontinue proceedings on terms that there be no fresh proceedings against the applicant.

The court had to determine whether the granting of leave to discontinue would effectively prevent the respondents from bringing fresh proceedings based on the same or similar grounds. The central legal issue was whether the terms proposed by the applicant, which included a prohibition on the respondents from initiating further claims of the same or similar kind, were just and reasonable. The court also needed to consider whether the terms were consistent with the rules and principles governing discontinuance in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The court found that the terms proposed by the applicant were just and reasonable and in accordance with the relevant rules. The court reasoned that the prohibition on bringing fresh proceedings was necessary to prevent the respondents from repeatedly pursuing the same claims against the applicant. The court noted that the terms provided sufficient protection to the applicant while allowing the respondents to pursue their claims through other available mechanisms, such as the Financial Industry Complaints Service Limited. Consequently, the court granted leave for the specified respondents to discontinue their claims with the condition that they would not initiate any further proceedings based on the same or similar grounds.

In its orders, the court granted leave to the specified respondents to discontinue their claims. It further ordered that the respondents would not be allowed to make any further application for relief of the same or similar kind based on the same or similar grounds to those relied upon in their respective proceedings. The court also allowed 14 days for the parties to submit written submissions on the issue of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to the second, fifth, sixth, ninth, twelfth, twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-ninth, thirty-eighth, forty-first, forty-second, forty-fourth and forty-seventh respondents to discontinue their respective claims made against the applicant.

2. Order that the said respondents shall not make any further application for relief of the same or similar kind based on the same or similar grounds to those relied upon in their respective proceedings consolidated within Cairns proceeding No 557 of 2007 other than their foreshadowed applications pursuant to the Rules of the Financial Industry Complaints Service Limited.

3. Allow 14 days for parties to make submissions in writing on the issue of costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.