Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Short Punch & Greatorix - [2000] QCA 407

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Equuscorp P/L v Short Punch & Greatorix & Ors; Equuscorp P/L v Deacons Graham & James & Anor [2000] QCA 407

PARTIES:
EQUUSCORP PTY LTD ACN 006 012 344
(applicant/applicant)
v
SHORT PUNCH & GREATORIX (a firm)
(first respondent/first respondent)
HALLCORP MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
ACN 053 013 844
(second respondent/second respondent)
PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED
ACN 000 000 993
(third respondent/third respondent)

EQUUSCORP PTY LTD ACN 006 012 344
(applicant/applicant)
v
DEACONS GRAHAM & JAMES (a firm)
(first respondent/first respondent)
PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED
ACN 000 000 993
(second respondent/second respondent)

FILE NO/S: Appeal No 6987 of 2000
Appeal No 6988 of 2000
DC No 2529 of 2000
DC No 2528 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Applications for leave s118DCA (civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 3 October 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 27 September 2000

JUDGE: de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER: Applications for leave to appeal refused with costs to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – COSTS – TAXATION – REVIEW – beneficiary under unit trust challenged reasonableness of bills of costs rendered by solicitors in relation to their clients, the unit trust’s trustee and manager – application for leave to appeal against District Court Judge’s dismissing application for review on the basis applicant not a “client” for the purposes of the act – whether applicant fell within extended definition of “client” – language and flow of act and contemplation of statutory scheme – whether applicant “liable to pay” the accounts – where deed enabled levying of unit holders for professional costs incurred by trustee or manager in administration of trust – court’s previously existing discretion to permit a beneficiary to refer a bill of costs for taxation considered

Civil Justice Reform Act 1998
Costs Act 1867 s 24, s 30, s 31
District Court Act 1967 s 118(3)
Queensland Law Society Act 1952 s 3, s 6ZA, s 6ZC, s 6ZE, s 6ZF
Solicitors Act 1843 (Eng) s 38
Trusts Act 1973 s 72

Deputy Commissioner for Taxation v Moorebank Pty Ltd [1987] 1 QdR 414, referred to
Hardoon v Belilios [1901] AC 118, referred to
In re Gray [1901] 1 Ch 239, referred to
In re Longbotham and Sons [1904] 2 Ch 152, referred to
In re Negus [1895] 1 Ch 73, referred to
Littlewood v George Wimpey & Co Ltd [1953] 2 QB 501, referred to
Re Barber (1845) 14 M & W 719; 153 ER 665, followed
Re Spencer 91881) 51 LJCh 271, referred to
Sadler v Palfreyman (1834) 1 Ad&E 717; 110 ER 189, referred to

COUNSEL:
GH Brandis for the applicant in Appeal No 6987/00
PE Hack for the first respondent in Appeal No 6987/00
AM Daubney for the second and third respondents in Appeal No 6987/00

GH Brandis for the applicant in Appeal No 6988/00
RIM…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Short Punch & Greatorix 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] QCA 407
Decision Date: 3 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Equuscorp Pty Ltd and Short Punch & Greatorix were involved in a dispute concerning the taxation of legal costs associated with the administration of a unit trust. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the beneficiary of the unit trust, who challenged the reasonableness of the bills of costs, qualified as a "client" under the relevant legislation, thus granting them the right to seek a review of the costs. This qualification hinged on whether the beneficiary was "liable to pay" the accounts as per the trust deed, which allowed the trustee or manager to levy unit holders for professional costs incurred in administering the trust.

The court was required to interpret the statutory language and consider the broader legislative scheme to determine if the beneficiary fell within the extended definition of "client." The court examined whether the beneficiary's potential liability to pay the costs under the trust deed was sufficient to grant them standing to challenge the bills of costs. Additionally, the court revisited its existing discretion to permit a beneficiary to refer a bill of costs for taxation, considering the statutory provisions and the intent of the legislation.

The Supreme Court found that the beneficiary did not qualify as a "client" within the statutory definition, as the trust deed did not explicitly place the financial burden on the beneficiary to pay the costs. The court dismissed the application for review and denied the beneficiary's request for leave to appeal. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal were refused, and costs were ordered to be assessed in favour of the respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications for leave to appeal refused with costs to be assessed.

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:	Equuscorp P/L v Short Punch & Greatorix & Ors; Equuscorp P/L v Deacons Graham & James & Anor [2000] QCA 407
PARTIES:	EQUUSCORP PTY LTD ACN 006 012 344 (applicant/applicant) v SHORT PUNCH & GREATORIX (a firm) (first respondent/first respondent) HALLCORP MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 053 013 844 (second respondent/second respondent) PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED ACN 000 000 993 (third respondent/third respondent) EQUUSCORP PTY LTD ACN 006 012 344 (applicant/applicant) v DEACONS GRAHAM & JAMES (a firm) (first respondent/first respondent) PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED ACN 000 000 993 (second respondent/second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6987 of 2000 Appeal No 6988 of 2000 DC No 2529 of 2000 DC No 2528 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Applications for leave s118DCA (civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 October 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 September 2000
JUDGE:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Applications for leave to appeal refused with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – TAXATION – REVIEW – beneficiary under unit trust challenged reasonableness of bills of costs rendered by solicitors in relation to their clients, the unit trust’s trustee and manager – application for leave to appeal against District Court Judge’s dismissing application for review on the basis applicant not a “client” for the purposes of the act – whether applicant fell within extended definition of “client” – language and flow of act and contemplation of statutory scheme – whether applicant “liable to pay” the accounts – where deed enabled levying of unit holders for professional costs incurred by trustee or manager in administration of trust – court’s previously existing discretion to permit a beneficiary to refer a bill of costs for taxation considered Civil Justice Reform Act 1998 Costs Act 1867 s 24, s 30, s 31 District Court Act 1967 s 118(3) Queensland Law Society Act 1952 s 3, s 6ZA, s 6ZC, s 6ZE, s 6ZF Solicitors Act 1843 (Eng) s 38 Trusts Act 1973 s 72 Deputy Commissioner for Taxation v Moorebank Pty Ltd [1987] 1 QdR 414, referred to Hardoon v Belilios [1901] AC 118, referred to In re Gray [1901] 1 Ch 239, referred to In re Longbotham and Sons [1904] 2 Ch 152, referred to In re Negus [1895] 1 Ch 73, referred to Littlewood v George Wimpey & Co Ltd [1953] 2 QB 501, referred to Re Barber (1845) 14 M & W 719; 153 ER 665, followed Re Spencer 91881) 51 LJCh 271, referred to Sadler v Palfreyman (1834) 1 Ad&E 717; 110 ER 189, referred to
COUNSEL:	GH Brandis for the applicant in Appeal No 6987/00 PE Hack for the first respondent in Appeal No 6987/00 AM Daubney for the second and third respondents in Appeal No 6987/00 GH Brandis for the applicant in Appeal No 6988/00 RIM…