Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Schroder

[2000] QCA 7

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA

THOMAS J

No 9283 of 1999

EQUUSCORP PTY LTD (FORMERLY EQUUS

FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD)	Respondent (Plaintiff)
and
RURAL FINANCE PTY LTD - RECEIVERS
& MANAGERS APPOINTED
(IN LIQUIDATION)	Respondent (Plaintiff)
and
KENNETH GORDON SCHRODER	Appellant (Defendant)
BRISBANE ..DATE 03/02/2000 0302000 T14/JAP22 M/T COA5/2000

PINCUS JA: In this application for leave to appeal and for a
stay, the Court having considered the matter is prepared to accept
the undertaking which is proffered by Mr Couper QC, marked "A",
initialled and dated by me and which will be placed with the
papers.

I should, for myself, say that in my view the principal argument advanced by Mr Crowe was that the order made below was oppressive as it involved too much difficulty in compliance. The undertaking which is given appears to me to a significant extent to reduce the impact of that submission at least sufficiently to make it undesirable to hold up the proceedings further.

Nevertheless, of course, Mr Crone is at liberty to pursue the appeal which has been instituted if so advised. The order I propose then is that the application for leave to appeal and the application for a stay both be dismissed on the undertaking given by Mr Couper QC on behalf of the respondent/plaintiffs in the form marked "A" initialled and dated by me and placed with the papers and I would propose that the parties be asked to address the Court on the question of costs.

...

PINCUS JA: Gentlemen, it has been pointed out to me that I
referred to "the appeal". I intended to say, "the appeal, if
any". We are not, of course, determining whether there is any
right of appeal.
0302000 T14/JAP22 M/T COA5/2000

As to costs the Court has determined that the respondents should have half their costs of the appeal and it will be so ordered. That is, on the undertaking which I have referred to being given, the applications for a stay and the leave to appeal are refused and the order for costs is as I have indicated.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an application for leave to appeal and for a stay from Kenneth Gordon Schroder against the decision of the primary judge. The respondents were Equuscorp Pty Ltd, formerly Equus Financial Services Ltd, and Rural Finance Pty Ltd, receivers and managers appointed, in liquidation. Schroder had initially sought an order for leave to appeal and for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. The application was dismissed on the basis of an undertaking provided by Mr Couper QC on behalf of the respondents. The Court ordered that the respondents should bear half of the costs of the appeal.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether leave to appeal should be granted and whether proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Schroder argued that the order made below was oppressive as it involved too much difficulty in compliance. The respondents contended that the application should be dismissed and that the appeal should not proceed. The Court had to balance the difficulty of compliance with the need to expedite the proceedings.

The Court found that the undertaking provided by Mr Couper QC sufficiently addressed the difficulty in compliance issue raised by Schroder. The Court held that the appeal, if any, could proceed if so advised, but on the basis of the undertaking, the application for leave to appeal and the application for a stay were dismissed. The Court ordered that the respondents should bear half of the costs of the appeal, subject to the undertaking being given.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established