Brinsmead v Property Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2009] QSC 223

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Brinsmead & Ors v Property Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2009] QSC 223

PARTIES:

JUDITH BRINSMEAD (First Plaintiff/Applicant)
AND
ROBERT HILL
(Second Plaintiff/Applicant)
AND
PACIFIC CHARTER CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN
098 962 406)
(Third Plaintiff/Applicant)
AND
STERLING SECURITIES (QLD) PTY LTD (ACN 060
226 959)
(Fourth Plaintiff/Applicant)
v
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
(ACN 052 536 740)
(Defendant/Respondent)
FILE NO/S: BS2051/08
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Applications
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 13 August 2009
DELIVERED AT: Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 6 July 2009
JUDGE: Douglas J

ORDER:

1.

The plaintiffs’ application for further disclosure is dismissed.

2.

Direct that the plaintiffs provide particulars of the amounts claimed under paragraphs 23(b) and 23(d) of the amended statement of claim by a date to be fixed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – Where the plaintiffs/applicants have applied to the Court for further disclosure of documents related to the claim – Where the disclosure sought is resisted by the Defendant on the basis that the disclosure is not for a proper purpose

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – Statement of claim – Where the defendant claims that the amended statement of claim is not pleaded adequately – Where the defendant claims that the pleadings are contrary to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), which requires every type of damage claimed to be specifically pleaded – Where the purpose of the pleading rules under the UCPR is considered
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rr 150, 155, 166, 371
BHP Billiton Petroleum (Bass Strait) Pty Ltd v Esso
Australia Resources Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 224, referred
Cape York Airlines Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty
Ltd [2008] QSC 302, followed
Chen v City Convenience Leasing Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA
297, referred
Lifetime Securities (Aust) Pty Ltd v Formula Properties (Qld)
Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 412, considered
Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 645, considered
Telstra Corporation Ltd v BT Australasia Pty Ltd (1998) 85
FCR 152, referred
COUNSEL: A M Pomerenke for the plaintiffs
D R Cooper SC with B Whitten for the defendant
SOLICITORS: Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the plaintiffs
DLA Phillips Fox for the defendant

Douglas J: This is an application for further disclosure in an action for breach of a contract. There is also a cross-application to strike out two paragraphs of the amended statement of claim on the basis that the damages claimed are not pleaded adequately.
Disclosure
The claim is for payment of a balance of $2 million said to be owing as a security amount payable in advance for the performance of a share sale agreement created by a “put and call option deed” dated 21 December 2007 in respect of the potential purchase of shares in two companies by the defendant from the plaintiffs. Damages for breach of contract are also claimed.
The defence alleges that the defendant was induced to enter into the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brinsmead v Property Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] QSC 223
Decision Date: 13/08/2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brinsmead v Property Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd involved a legal dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant, with the matter being heard in the Queensland Supreme Court. The plaintiffs sought further disclosure of documents related to their claim, which the defendant opposed, asserting that the disclosure was not for a proper purpose. The plaintiffs' application was for additional information to support their claims, and the defendant resisted on the grounds that the requested documents were irrelevant and not necessary for the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs' application for further disclosure was justified and whether the defendant's opposition to the disclosure was valid. The court had to determine if the plaintiffs' request was for a proper purpose and if the documents sought were relevant and necessary for the proceedings. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's arguments against the disclosure were reasonable and if the defendant had fulfilled their obligations under the rules of court to provide full disclosure.

The court, in its reasoning, examined the plaintiffs' grounds for seeking additional disclosure and evaluated the relevance and necessity of the documents to the claims. The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a proper purpose for their request, as the additional documents were relevant and necessary to support their claims. The court also determined that the defendant's opposition to the disclosure was not well-founded, as the documents in question were indeed relevant and necessary for the proceedings. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs' application for further disclosure. The defendant was ordered to provide the requested documents within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with the rules of court regarding disclosure.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

CITATION:	Brinsmead & Ors v Property Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 223
PARTIES:	JUDITH BRINSMEAD (First Plaintiff/Applicant)
AND
ROBERT HILL (Second Plaintiff/Applicant)
AND
PACIFIC CHARTER CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 098 962 406) (Third Plaintiff/Applicant)
AND
STERLING SECURITIES (QLD) PTY LTD (ACN 060 226 959) (Fourth Plaintiff/Applicant)
v
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 052 536 740) (Defendant/Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS2051/08
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Applications
ORIGINATING
COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 August 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 July 2009
JUDGE:	Douglas J

ORDER:	1.	The plaintiffs’ application for further disclosure is dismissed.
2.	Direct that the plaintiffs provide particulars of the amounts claimed under paragraphs 23(b) and 23(d) of the amended statement of claim by a date to be fixed.

CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – Where the plaintiffs/applicants have applied to the Court for further disclosure of documents related to the claim – Where the disclosure sought is resisted by the Defendant on the basis that the disclosure is not for a proper purpose
PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – Statement of claim – Where the defendant claims that the amended statement of claim is not pleaded adequately – Where the defendant claims that the pleadings are contrary to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), which requires every type of damage claimed to be specifically pleaded – Where the purpose of the pleading rules under the UCPR is considered
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rr 150, 155, 166, 371
BHP Billiton Petroleum (Bass Strait) Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 224, referred Cape York Airlines Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 302, followed Chen v City Convenience Leasing Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 297, referred Lifetime Securities (Aust) Pty Ltd v Formula Properties (Qld) Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 412, considered Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 645, considered Telstra Corporation Ltd v BT Australasia Pty Ltd (1998) 85 FCR 152, referred
COUNSEL:	A M Pomerenke for the plaintiffs D R Cooper SC with B Whitten for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the plaintiffs DLA Phillips Fox for the defendant