Cofp Pty ltd v Dhanush Infotech Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cofp Pty ltd -v- Dhanush Infotech Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 105

PARTIES:

COFP PTY LTD

(respondent-plaintiff)

and

DHANUSH INFOTECH PTY LTD

(applicant-defendant)

FILE NO/S:

536 of 2016

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2016 (Ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 May 2016

JUDGE:

Jones DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The application for review filed on 15 February 2016 be dismissed.

2.   The statement of claim filed 5 April 2016 be struck out.

APPEARANCES:

S.A. Gow for the applicant-defendant as director of Dhanush Infotech Pty Ltd

D Munro for the respondent-plaintiff

1. HIS HONOUR:   I am concerned here with an application for the following relief:  “the proceedings be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s cost as taxed if not agreed.”

1. It was agreed during discussion with the representative of the defendant that it would serve no good purpose to make a cost order in the event that the application was successful.  I agree that this court should avoid making orders which have virtually no prospects of being complied with.

1. It was not identified on which part of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, or indeed any other basis, that the applicant was relying on for the relief sought, but during discussion with Mr Gow, who appeared for the defendant, it was accepted that the relief sought was essentially that prescribed for in rule 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, namely, that the statement of claim be struck out. Primarily on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and is otherwise frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process of the court.

1. Four grounds were relied on by the applicant, but before I deal with those, I should say that Mr Gow appeared for the applicant-defendant.  Mr Gow has a law degree but he does not practise law.  He appears here in the capacity of a director of the applicant company.

1. Mr Munro appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent.  When I use the word appear, I do so guardedly.  As I said, the applicant-defendant relies, essentially, on four grounds to support its application, the first that Mr Munro was not a director of the plaintiff and had not otherwise revealed in what, if any, capacity he would or could act on behalf of the plaintiff company.  The second ground was to the effect that the matters that Mr Munro seeks to agitate, that is, the cause of action that he seeks to agitate, is essentially the same as that that was dealt with by Judge Griffin some time ago and also by the Court of Appeal.  The third ground, and indeed, the fourth ground, really refer to the personal circumstances of the plaintiff, particularly in respect of costs, and I do not think it is necessary to go into those any further other than to observe that the plaintiff company has not carried out business for some considerable time and, as I understand it…