SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Catalyst Townsville SPV No 1 Pty Ltd v The Presbyterian Church of Queensland (receivers and managers appointed); Catalyst Corinda SPV No 2 Pty Ltd v The Presbyterian Church of Queensland (receivers and managers appointed); The Presbyterian Church of Queensland (receivers and managers appointed) v Catalyst Carina SPV Pty Ltd & Anor [No 2] [2025] QSC 282
PARTIES:
In BS 5900 of 2021:
CATALYST TOWNSVILLE SPV NO 1 PTY LTD (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CATALYST TOWNSVILLE SPV NO 1 TRUST)
ACN 621 858 839(plaintiff)
v
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QUEENSLAND (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)(defendant)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND(intervener)
In BS 12562 of 2021:
CATALYST CORINDA SPV NO 2 PTY LTD (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CATALYST CORINDA SPV NO 2 TRUST)
ACN 623 429 247
(plaintiff)
v
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QUEENSLAND (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(defendant)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND(intervener)
In BS 14920 of 2021:
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QUEENSLAND (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(plaintiff)
v
CATALYST CARINA SPV PTY LTD (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CATALYST CARINA SPV TRUST)
ACN 629 754 632
(first defendant)CATALYST FINANCE SPV PTY LTD (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CATALYST FINANCE SPV TRUST)
ACN 629 766 936
(second defendant)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND(intervener)
FILE NO/S:
BS 5900 of 2021
BS 12562 of 2021BS 14920 of 2021
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Claim and Statement of Claim – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
Date of Orders: 29 October 2025
Date of Publication of Reasons: 30 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
Heard on the papers
JUDGE:
Justice Bradley
ORDERS:
In BS 5900 of 2021:
1. Order as per draft.
In BS 12562 of 2021:
1. Order as per draft.
In BS 14920 of 2021:
1. Order as per draft.
CATCHWORDS
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – AGREED JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – where the reasons in proceedings BS 5900 of 2021, BS 12562 of 2021 and BS 14920 of 2021 were delivered on 3 October 2025 – where the Court directed the parties in the those proceedings to confer and agree upon forms of orders consistent with the published reasons – where the parties provided draft orders for judgment in each proceeding – whether the Court should make the orders in the agreed terms
Lee v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2013] QCA 284, cited
COUNSEL:
M R Hodge KC, with D C Clarry, E L Beechey, J D Byrnes, and D P Davison, for the plaintiff in BS 5900 of 2021, the plaintiff in BS 12562 of 2021, and the defendants in BS 14920 of 2021.
A M Pomerenke KC and A C Stumer KC, with S J Webster and S L Walpole, for the defendant in BS 5900 of 2021, the defendant in BS 12562 of 2021, and the plaintiff in BS 14920 of 2021.
B J McEniery, for the intervener in BS 5900 of 2021, BS 12562 of 2021, and BS 14920 of 2021.
SOLICITORS:
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the plaintiff in BS 5900 of 2021, for the plaintiff in BS 12562 of 2021, and for the defendants in BS 14920 of 2021.
Allens for the defendant in BS 5900 of 2021, for the defendant in BS 12562 of 2021, and for the plaintiff in BS 14920 of 2021.
Crown Law for the intervener in BS 5900 of 2021, BS 12562 of 2021, and BS 14920 of 2021.
On 3 October 2025, I published reasons in these three proceedings. On that day, directions were made for the parties to confer and attempt to agree upon forms of orders consistent with the published reasons.
On 29 October 2025, pursuant to those directions, the parties informed the Court that they had agreed on the forms of orders that should be made, subject to the Court exercising its discretion, and provided a draft in each proceeding. The Attorney, as an intervenor, also considered the draft orders. The Attorney does not consider there is anything in the draft orders that she wishes to address.
The draft orders include the judgment sums and interest. In each case, the interest has been calculated up to and including 29 October 2025. As the calculation of interest has been agreed, it is appropriate for the Court to make orders for interest in the agreed amounts.
Each of the draft orders provides for the corporation known as the Presbyterian Church of Queensland (the Corporation) to pay the costs of the relevant Catalyst party (or parties) on the indemnity basis. Each relevant Catalyst party has a contractual right to indemnity costs. In exercising the discretion to order costs, the Court considers whether it should be exercised in a way different from the contractual agreement made by the relevant parties.[1] The Corporation does not object to an order being made in terms of the contractual agreements. Nor does it consider that there are any factors which should cause the Court to exercise the discretion other than according to the contractual rights of the Catalyst parties to be awarded indemnity costs.
[1]Lee v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2013] QCA 284 at [9] (McMurdo J; Fraser JA and Atkinson J agreeing).
In the circumstances, I have made orders providing for the Catalyst parties to recover their costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis.
No order is sought in respect of the intervention of the Attorney-General.
The Catalyst parties have advised the Court that the submission of agreed draft orders was not intended to prejudice any right they may have to bring an application for non-party costs orders against the receivers of the Corporation in respect of the proceedings. That position is noted.
Finally, I am grateful to the parties for having identified some typographical and other minor errors in the published reasons. Those corrections have been made. A revised version of the reasons has been published.
- AGLC
- Catalyst Townsville SPV No 1 Pty Ltd v The Presbyterian Church of Queensland (receivers and managers appointed); Catalyst Corinda SPV No 2 Pty Ltd v The Presbyterian Church of Queensland (receivers and managers.. [2025] QSC 282
- Case
- [2025] QSC 282
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the Court was whether it should make the orders in the agreed terms. The Court noted that each draft order provided for the Church to pay the costs of the respective Catalyst party on an indemnity basis. The Court also noted that the Catalyst parties had a contractual right to indemnity costs. The Court considered whether there were any reasons to exercise its discretion in a way different from the contractual agreement made by the parties. The Church did not object to an order being made in terms of the contractual agreements. Nor did it consider that there were any factors which should cause the Court to exercise the discretion other than according to the contractual rights of the Catalyst parties to be awarded indemnity costs. The Court then made orders providing for the Catalyst parties to recover their costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis.
The Court noted that no order was sought in respect of the intervention of the Attorney-General. The Catalyst parties advised the Court that the submission of agreed draft orders was not intended to prejudice any right they may have to bring an application for non-party costs orders against the receivers of the Church in respect of the proceedings. That position was noted. The Court also corrected some typographical and other minor errors in the published reasons and published a revised version of the reasons.
The Court made orders in each proceeding in the terms agreed by the parties. The Court was satisfied that the agreed orders were appropriate and in accordance with the contractual rights of the parties. The Court also noted that the Catalyst parties had not intended to prejudice any right they may have to bring an application for non-party costs orders against the receivers of the Church. The Court also corrected some errors in the published reasons and published a revised version of the reasons.
Orders
Orders of the court
In BS 5900 of 2021:
1. Order as per draft.
In BS 12562 of 2021:
1. Order as per draft.
In BS 14920 of 2021:
1. Order as per draft.
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
Each of the draft orders provides for the corporation known as the Presbyterian Church of Queensland (the Corporation) to pay the costs of the relevant Catalyst party (or parties) on the indemnity basis. Each relevant Catalyst party has a contractual right to indemnity costs. In exercising the discretion to order costs, the Court considers whether it should be exercised in a way different from the contractual agreement made by the relevant parties.[1] The Corporation does not object to an order being made in terms of the contractual agreements. Nor does it consider that there are any factors which should cause the Court to exercise the discretion other than according to the contractual rights of the Catalyst parties to be awarded indemnity costs. [1]Lee v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2013] QCA 284 at [9] (McMurdo J; Fraser JA and Atkinson J agreeing). In the circumstances, I have made orders providing for the Catalyst parties to recover their costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis. No order is sought in respect of the intervention of the Attorney-General. The Catalyst parties have advised the Court that the submission of agreed draft orders was not intended to prejudice any right they may have to bring an application for non-party costs orders against the receivers of the Corporation in respect of the proceedings. That position is noted. Finally, I am grateful to the parties for having identified some typographical and other minor errors in the published reasons. Those corrections have been made. A revised version of the reasons has been published.