EPAS Ltd v. James & Ors - [2007] QSC 38

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

EPAS Ltd v James & Ors [2007] QSC 038

PARTIES:

EPAS LIMITED (ACN 010 642 314)
(respondent/plaintiff)
v
TERRANCE ROBERT JAMES
(first defendant)
and
JOHN KENNETH SHEILDS
(second defendant)
and
JEFFREY JOHN JAMES
(third defendant)
and
GERALD LEONARD PARKER
(fourth defendant)
and
HENRY ANTHONY GREENROD
(fifth defendant)
and
MERVYN J HEAD, JOHN R CHEEL and KENNETH J THOMPSON
(sixth defendants)
and
OMITTED
(seventh defendant)
and
AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant/eighth defendant)

AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant)
v
MICHAEL BURNETT
(respondent)

AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant)
v
MARGARET HOCH
(respondent)

AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant)
v
CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH LAWYERS
(respondent)

AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant)
v
ROGER MARC DERRINGTON
(respondent)

FILE NO:

S3544 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

27 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 and 22 February 2007

JUDGE:

Wilson J

ORDER:

Applications dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – COURTS – OTHER MATTERS – ASIC caused two separate proceedings to be brought in relation to a superannuation trust fund, by the two corporate trustees – one company (EPAS) is the plaintiff in one proceeding and a defendant in the other – the same counsel and firm of solicitors act for the plaintiff in both matters – whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to control its officers to restrain the lawyers from acting for EPAS as plaintiff

Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 1989 (Cth) s 49, s 50
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) s 55

ASC v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (1996) 70 FCR 93, cited
Geelong School Supplies Pty Ltd v Dean [2006] FCA 1404, cited
Grimwade v Meagher [1995] 1 VR 446, cited
Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561, cited
Somerville v ASC (1995) 60 FCR 319, cited
Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501, cited

COUNSEL:

P L O'Shea SC and S E Brown for the applicant

J H Dalton SC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Minter Ellison for the applicant
Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers for the respondents

Wilson J: The eighth defendant seeks orders restraining the solicitors and counsel who act for the plaintiff in proceeding S3544 of 2000 from continuing to do so. The applications are founded on the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to control its own officers so as to ensure the due administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial process.[1]
[1]Geelong School Supplies Pty Ltd v Dean [2006] FCA 1404; Grimwade v Meagher [1995] 1 VR 446; Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561; Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501.

The plaintiff EPAS Limited (“EPAS”) and Trust Company Superannuation Services Limited (“TCSSL”) were successively the trustees of The Employees Productivity Award Superannuation Fund. The first to fifth defendants were directors of…

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.

Continue reading EPAS Ltd v. James & Ors

Details

AGLC: EPAS Ltd v James [2007] QSC 38
Case: [2007] QSC 38
Decision Date: 27 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In EPAS Ltd v. James & Ors, the plaintiff, EPAS Ltd, sought to restrain its lawyers from acting for the defendant, James, in a separate proceeding related to the same superannuation trust fund. EPAS was the plaintiff in one proceeding and the defendant in the other, both of which were brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The same counsel and firm of solicitors acted for EPAS in both matters, leading to concerns about potential conflicts of interest. EPAS argued that the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to control its officers to prevent the lawyers from acting for it as plaintiff in the second proceeding.

The court was required to decide whether it should intervene to prevent the lawyers from representing EPAS in the second proceeding, given the potential conflict of interest. The central issue was whether the court had the power to control its officers and restrain the lawyers from acting in a manner that could compromise the integrity of the legal proceedings. The court had to balance the need to prevent conflicts of interest with the right of parties to choose their legal representation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that it did not have the inherent jurisdiction to control its officers to prevent the lawyers from acting for EPAS. The court reasoned that the inherent jurisdiction was a limited power, intended to preserve the integrity of the court's processes, and did not extend to controlling the actions of lawyers acting for parties in litigation. The court held that the potential conflict of interest was a matter for the parties to address through their own arrangements, rather than through judicial intervention. The court concluded that there was no basis for it to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in this case, and accordingly dismissed the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications dismissed

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:	EPAS Ltd v James & Ors [2007] QSC 038
PARTIES:	EPAS LIMITED (ACN 010 642 314) (respondent/plaintiff) v TERRANCE ROBERT JAMES (first defendant) and JOHN KENNETH SHEILDS (second defendant) and JEFFREY JOHN JAMES (third defendant) and GERALD LEONARD PARKER (fourth defendant) and HENRY ANTHONY GREENROD (fifth defendant) and MERVYN J HEAD, JOHN R CHEEL and KENNETH J THOMPSON (sixth defendants) and OMITTED (seventh defendant) and AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant/eighth defendant) AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant) v MICHAEL BURNETT (respondent) AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant) v MARGARET HOCH (respondent) AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant) v CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH LAWYERS (respondent) AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant) v ROGER MARC DERRINGTON (respondent)
FILE NO:	S3544 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	27 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 and 22 February 2007
JUDGE:	Wilson J
ORDER:	Applications dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – COURTS – OTHER MATTERS – ASIC caused two separate proceedings to be brought in relation to a superannuation trust fund, by the two corporate trustees – one company (EPAS) is the plaintiff in one proceeding and a defendant in the other – the same counsel and firm of solicitors act for the plaintiff in both matters – whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to control its officers to restrain the lawyers from acting for EPAS as plaintiff Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 1989 (Cth) s 49, s 50 Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) s 55 ASC v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (1996) 70 FCR 93, cited Geelong School Supplies Pty Ltd v Dean [2006] FCA 1404, cited Grimwade v Meagher [1995] 1 VR 446, cited Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561, cited Somerville v ASC (1995) 60 FCR 319, cited Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501, cited
COUNSEL:	P L O'Shea SC and S E Brown for the applicant J H Dalton SC for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Minter Ellison for the applicant Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers for the respondents