SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Connelly and Harris & Anor v McGrath & Anor [2019] QSC 304
PARTIES:
ANTHONY CONNELLY AND WILLIAM HARRIS AS LIQUIDATORS OF EUREKA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY NO. 2 LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
EUREKA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY NO. 2 LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
(first plaintiffs)
and
(second plaintiff)
v
DAVID PETER MCGRATH(first defendant)
and
MCGRATH FINANCIAL SERVICES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 084 000 840
(second defendant)FILE NO:
BS 4896 of 2019
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
10 December 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
15 November 2019
JUDGE:
Ryan J
ORDER:
1. In the defendants’ application –
a. I order dispensation from the pleading rules in relation to paragraphs 14, 15, 18, 21, 22 and 24 of the Amended Statement of Claim for the First Defendant.
b. I order dispensation from the pleading rules in relation to paragraph 24 of the Amended Statement of Claim for the Second Defendant.
c. I order, in the case of the First Defendant, in limine relief from the disclosure obligation to the same extent as dispensation from the pleading rules has been ordered by me or not challenged by the plaintiffs.
d. Otherwise the defendants’ application is dismissed.
e. Liberty to apply.
2. I grant the plaintiffs’ application for interlocutory orders.
3. I will hear the parties as to the form of the orders, and as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – OTHER MATTERS – where the defendants submit that compliance with the rules of pleading and disclosure would interfere with the first defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination – where the defendants applied for dispensation from the pleading requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 and relief in limine from their disclosure obligations – where the first defendant was the sole director of the second defendant – whether not granting the second defendant the same dispensation and relief would undermine the first defendant’s privilege.
EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – INJUNCTIONS TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY PENDING DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS – where the plaintiffs applied for freezing orders, under Rules 260A and 260D of the UCPR, pending resolution of the proceedings.
Financial IntermediariesAct 1996 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999
Anderson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2013] 2 Qd R 401
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
CC Containers Pty Ltd & ors v Lee & ors (No 2) [2012] VSC 149
Davey v Silverstein & Ors [2019] VSC 302
E L Bell Packaging Pty Ltd v Allied Seafoods Ltd (1990) 4 ASCR 85
Gemmell and Another v Le Roi Homestyle Cookies Pty Ltd (in liq) and Others (2014) 46 VR 583
HRF Nominees Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) ATF HFR Constructions Unit Trust and another v Man…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Connelly and Harris v McGrath 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QSC 304
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the first defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination would be compromised if the second defendant was not granted the same dispensation and relief. The court considered whether the first defendant’s privilege would be undermined if the second defendant was required to comply with the pleading and disclosure rules. The court also had to determine if the plaintiffs were entitled to interlocutory orders to freeze the defendants’ assets pending the outcome of the proceedings.
The court granted dispensation from the pleading requirements for certain paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim for both defendants, and in limine relief for the first defendant, but rejected the application for the same relief for the second defendant. The court found that the second defendant’s interests did not align with the first defendant’s privilege and, therefore, the second defendant could not claim the same protection. The court granted the plaintiffs' application for interlocutory orders to freeze the defendants' assets. The court scheduled further hearings to determine the form of the orders and the costs.
The orders included dispensation from specific pleading rules for the first defendant, dispensation for the second defendant regarding one paragraph, in limine relief for the first defendant, and interlocutory freezing orders for the plaintiffs. The court also left open the possibility for further applications and set a date for hearing on the form of the orders and associated costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In the defendants’ application –
a. I order dispensation from the pleading rules in relation to paragraphs 14, 15, 18, 21, 22 and 24 of the Amended Statement of Claim for the First Defendant.
b. I order dispensation from the pleading rules in relation to paragraph 24 of the Amended Statement of Claim for the Second Defendant.
c. I order, in the case of the First Defendant, in limine relief from the disclosure obligation to the same extent as dispensation from the pleading rules has been ordered by me or not challenged by the plaintiffs.
d. Otherwise the defendants’ application is dismissed.
e. Liberty to apply.
2. I grant the plaintiffs’ application for interlocutory orders.
3. I will hear the parties as to the form of the orders, and as to 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.