Fairman v Jonelca Holdings Pty Ltd - [2025] QSC 40

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fairman v Jonelca Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 40

PARTIES:

MATTHEW MICHAEL FAIRMAN
DARNA COURTNEY BIEGMANN
WAYNE GORDON MARKS
PAUL JOSEPH
NEVILLE JAMES WRIGHT
TRACEY KAREN THORNBURY
SIMON GENTRY ROBERTS
CATIONA ANN ROBERTS
MELANIE JANE THOMPSON
TIMOTHY NELSON
JOHN FIELD
NICOLA FIELD
SACHIN LALLOO
JOANNA SYKES

(applicants)

v
JONELCA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
VALHALLA GC PTY LTD

(respondents)

FILE NO/S:

BS 16369/24

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2025 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2025

JUDGE:

Treston J

ORDER:

1.   The sealed envelope containing the confidential list filed pursuant to the order of Davis J made 19 December 2024 be opened and a copy provided by the respondents to the applicants by 13 February 2025.

2. Pursuant to rule 208D of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), by 17 February 2025, the respondents disclose to the applicants in electronic form the documents specified in the confidential list.

3.   The respondents have liberty to apply on 48 hours’ notice regarding any deletions from the list or redactions to particular documents.

4.   The respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the originating application. The respondent’s costs of complying with the order are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE UNDER THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES – DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS – ORDERS FOR PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE – where the applicants were parties to an “off the plan” series of purchase contracts for residential apartments in a development being undertaken by the respondents – where the application was brought on urgently due to the imminent expiration of the sunset date under the respective purchase contracts – where the applicants sought disclosure of documents to assist in deciding whether to commence proceedings against the respondents for a failure to complete the contracts due to delays in the construction of the development – whether the requirements of r 208D of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) are satisfied such that the applicant is entitled to preliminary disclosure of the documents sought

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 208B, 208D
Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005 (NSW), r 5.3
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 7.23

Explanatory Note, Uniform Civil Procedure (Preliminary Disclosure) Amendment Rule 2021 (Qld)

Blue Dog Group Pty Ltd v Glaucus Research Group California LLC [2024] QSC 37
Curtis v Ramsay Builders Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 151
Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Orekinetics Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 345
Hatfield v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2010) 77 NSWLR 506
Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Comrs [1973] 3 WLR 164
O’Connor v O’Connor [2018] NSWCA 214
Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd (2008) 169 FCR 435
Parr v Bavarian Steakhouse Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 196
Re Pyne [1997] 1 Qd R 326

COUNSEL:

D D Keane KC and M C Long for the applicants
N H Ferrett KC and A J Tindall for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the applicants
OMB…

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 Fairman v Jonelca Holdings Pty Ltd 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: [2025] QSC 40
Decision Date: 7 February 2025 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fairman v Jonelca Holdings Pty Ltd involves parties to "off the plan" purchase contracts for residential apartments in a development by Jonelca Holdings Pty Ltd. The applicants sought disclosure of documents to determine if they should proceed with legal action against the respondents for failing to complete the contracts due to construction delays. The application was urgent due to the impending expiration of the contracts. The court had to decide if the requirements of rule 208D of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) were met for preliminary disclosure.

The court examined the urgency of the application, the necessity for disclosure to decide on legal action, and whether the respondents had complied with previous orders regarding document disclosure. It found that the applicants had demonstrated a reasonable cause of action and the urgency of the situation justified the disclosure sought. The court ruled that the respondents must provide the specified documents by a set date and that the applicants were entitled to the disclosure under rule 208D. Additionally, the court ordered the respondents to pay the applicants' costs of the originating application, reserving the respondents' costs for compliance with the order.

The court's decision was based on the urgency and necessity for the applicants to make informed decisions about potential litigation. The respondents were ordered to disclose the documents in electronic form and provide a copy of a confidential list to the applicants. The respondents also have the liberty to apply for deletions or redactions within a specified timeframe. The court's orders were designed to balance the applicants' need for information with the respondents' rights to protect sensitive information.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The sealed envelope containing the confidential list filed pursuant to the order of Davis J made 19 December 2024 be opened and a copy provided by the respondents to the applicants by 13 February 2025.

2. Pursuant to rule 208D of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), by 17 February 2025, the respondents disclose to the applicants in electronic form the documents specified in the confidential list.

3. The respondents have liberty to apply on 48 hours’ notice regarding any deletions from the list or redactions to particular documents.

4. The respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the originating application. The respondent’s costs of complying with the order are reserved.

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:	Fairman v Jonelca Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 40
PARTIES:	MATTHEW MICHAEL FAIRMAN DARNA COURTNEY BIEGMANN WAYNE GORDON MARKS PAUL JOSEPH NEVILLE JAMES WRIGHT TRACEY KAREN THORNBURY SIMON GENTRY ROBERTS CATIONA ANN ROBERTS MELANIE JANE THOMPSON TIMOTHY NELSON JOHN FIELD NICOLA FIELD SACHIN LALLOO JOANNA SYKES (applicants) v JONELCA HOLDINGS PTY LTD VALHALLA GC PTY LTD (respondents)
FILE NO/S:	BS 16369/24
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	7 February 2025 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2025
JUDGE:	Treston J
ORDER:	1. The sealed envelope containing the confidential list filed pursuant to the order of Davis J made 19 December 2024 be opened and a copy provided by the respondents to the applicants by 13 February 2025. 2. Pursuant to rule 208D of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999* (Qld), by 17 February 2025, the respondents disclose to the applicants in electronic form the documents specified in the confidential list. 3. The respondents have liberty to apply on 48 hours’ notice regarding any deletions from the list or redactions to particular documents. 4. The respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the originating application. The respondent’s costs of complying with the order are reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE UNDER THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES – DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS – ORDERS FOR PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE – where the applicants were parties to an “off the plan” series of purchase contracts for residential apartments in a development being undertaken by the respondents – where the application was brought on urgently due to the imminent expiration of the sunset date under the respective purchase contracts – where the applicants sought disclosure of documents to assist in deciding whether to commence proceedings against the respondents for a failure to complete the contracts due to delays in the construction of the development – whether the requirements of r 208D of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) are satisfied such that the applicant is entitled to preliminary disclosure of the documents sought Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 208B, 208D Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005 (NSW), r 5.3 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 7.23 Explanatory Note, Uniform Civil Procedure (Preliminary Disclosure) Amendment Rule 2021 (Qld) Blue Dog Group Pty Ltd v Glaucus Research Group California LLC [2024] QSC 37 Curtis v Ramsay Builders Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 151 Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Orekinetics Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 345 Hatfield v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2010) 77 NSWLR 506 Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Comrs [1973] 3 WLR 164 O’Connor v O’Connor [2018] NSWCA 214 Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd (2008) 169 FCR 435 Parr v Bavarian Steakhouse Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 196 Re Pyne [1997] 1 Qd R 326
COUNSEL:	D D Keane KC and M C Long for the applicants N H Ferrett KC and A J Tindall for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the applicants OMB…