Creswick v Creswick

Case [2012] QSC 174

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Creswick v Creswick & Ors [2012] QSC 174

PARTIES:

FELIX ANTONIO CRESWICK
(applicant/defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim)
v
JOHN FRANCIS CRESWICK
(first respondent/first plaintiff/first defendant by counterclaim)
WILLIAM GERARD CRESWICK
(second respondent/second plaintiff/second defendant by counterclaim)
SHAYNE MARISE CRESWICK
(third respondent/third plaintiff/third defendant by counterclaim)
JANE VERONICA CRESWICK
(fourth respondent/fourth plaintiff/fourth defendant by counterclaim)
TABTILL PTY LTD ACN 010 408 545 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JOHN CRESWICK FAMILY TRUST
(fifth respondent/fifth plaintiff/fifth defendant by counterclaim)
TABTILL NO 2 PTY LTD ACN 098 424 741
(sixth respondent/sixth plaintiff/sixth defendant by counterclaim)
TABTILL NO 3 PTY LTD ACN 106 070 848
(seventh respondent/seventh plaintiff/seventh defendant by counterclaim)
TABTILL NO 4 PTY LTD ACN 106 071 096
(eighth respondent/eighth plaintiff/eighth defendant by counterclaim)
T2 PROJECTS PTY LTD ACN 109 792 707
(ninth respondent/ninth plaintiff/ninth defendant by counterclaim)

FILE NO/S:

BS10963 of 2007
Appeal No 11039 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 April 2012

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

As attached to these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – INSPECTION AND INTERIM PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY – where the Court of Appeal found for the applicant and made costs orders in his favour – where the applicant has sought undertakings that the respondents would not dissipate assets – where the respondents did not provide such undertakings – whether a freezing order should be granted over the assets held by the respondents

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 260A, r 260B, r 260D

Creswick & Ors v Creswick [2010] QSC 339, considered
Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd & Ors (1989) 18 NSWLR 319, applied
Tabtill Pty Ltd v Creswick; Creswick v Creswick & Ors [2011] QCA 381, considered
Tabtill Pty Ltd v Creswick; Creswick v Creswick & Ors [2012] QCA 78, considered

COUNSEL:

AC Stumer for the applicant
R A Perry SC for the first, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respondents
C D Coulsen for the second and fourth respondents
J B Sweeney for G E Commercial Corporation Pty Ltd intervening
P A Schmidt (solicitor) for Bank West intervening

SOLICITORS:

HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the applicant
Thomsons for the first, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respondents
LynchMorgan Lawyers for the second and fourth respondents
DibbsBarker for G E Commercial Corporation Pty Ltd intervening
Norton Rose for Bank West intervening

  1. The applicant seeks a freezing order on the assets held by the respondents.

  1. In 2010, after a 23 day trial, orders were made that, among other things, a particular agreement between the first to fourth plaintiffs and the defendant be specifically performed.[1] On 23 December 2011, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from that decision[2] and, among other things, made the following orders:

Continue reading Creswick v Creswick

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Creswick v Creswick [2012] QSC 174
Case
[2012] QSC 174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Creswick v Creswick involved a dispute between family members over the inspection and interim preservation of property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was asked to decide whether a freezing order should be granted over assets held by the respondents. The applicant, Creswick, sought the freezing order after the respondents failed to provide undertakings that they would not dissipate assets, despite the Court of Appeal finding in favor of the applicant and making costs orders in his favour.

The legal issues before the court were centered on the applicant's request for a freezing order, given the respondents' refusal to provide the required undertakings. The court needed to determine whether such an order was warranted under the circumstances and whether it was appropriate to grant the order to prevent the dissipation of assets. The court also considered the precedent set by the Court of Appeal and the consequences of the respondents' actions on the applicant's position.

In its decision, the court acknowledged the findings of the Court of Appeal and the applicant's successful pursuit of costs orders. The court found that the respondents' failure to provide undertakings to not dissipate assets was a significant factor in their consideration. The court reasoned that the freezing order was necessary to protect the applicant's interests and ensure that the respondents could not further dissipate assets. The court granted the freezing order and made appropriate costs orders in favor of the applicant.

The final orders of the court included the granting of a freezing order over the assets held by the respondents, with specific details regarding the scope and duration of the order. The court also ordered the respondents to pay costs associated with the application for the freezing order, as well as any other relevant costs. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the applicant's interests and ensuring that the respondents could not dissipate assets further.

Orders

Orders of the court

As attached to these reasons.

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.