Galacoast P/L & Anor v. McLeod & Anor - [2008] QSC 103

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Galacoast P/L & Anor v McLeod & Anor [2008] QSC 103

PARTIES:

GALACOAST PTY LTD ACN 053 364 435 trading as RAY WHITE BROADBEACH
(First Applicant)
KOLLOSCHE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
ACN 090 706 746 as trustee for the MK TRADING TRUST
(Second Applicant)
v
BRUCE McLEOD (the Registrar of the District Court of Queensland at Southport)
(First Respondent)
ARTWORLD PTY LTD (Administrator appointed)
ACN 010 239 326

(Second Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

4452 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

27 May 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 May 2008

JUDGE:

Acting Justice Skoien

ORDER:

Second respondent pay $186,147.50, with any accretions into Southport District Court in action No 544 of 2007

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW – where real estate agent paid funds into court pending dispute litigation – where Registrar paid the money to administrator of a company – whether administrator obtained payment of court in breach of rule 567 of UCPR – whether payment by registrar under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 involved an error of law

CORPORATIONS – VOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATION – PROTECTION OF COMPANY PROPERTY DURING ADMINISTRATION – where administrator obtained payment of court under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 – where ss 437, 440D, 440G were inapplicable

CONVEYANCING – RELATIONSHIP OF VENDOR AND PURCHASER – MATTERS ARISING BETWEEN CONTRACTS AND CONVEYANCE – DEPOSIT, AGENT’S COMMISSION, ETC. – whether real estate agent owns, in law or in equity, the commission in its trust account upon completion of a sale – whether real estate agent had a lien over money held on trust

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 437D, s 440D, 440G
Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, s 387, s 388(a)(ii), s 389(b)
Trust Accounts Act 1973, s 12(4)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 561

Active Property Marketing Services (Aust) Pty Ltd t/as Alpha Realty v Joelco Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 167, considered
Campbell v Smith (1887) 13 VLR 439, considered
Danny Morris & Anor v The Ship “Kiama” [1998] FCA 256, cited
Hammonds v Barclay (1802), 2 East 227, explained
Hewett & Ors v Court and Anor (1983) 149 CLR 639, cited
Nickelby Pty Ltd v Holden (1993) BC9402375, considered
Tibmor Pty Ltd v Nashlyn Pty Ltd [1989] 1 Qd R 610, considered

COUNSEL:

Mr TA Houghton for the applicants
Mr G Cranwell (solicitor) for the first respondent
Mr C Wilson for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ramsden Faes Lawyers for the applicants
CW Lohe Crown Solicitor for the first respondent
Mullins Lawyers for the second respondent

SKOIEN AJ: This is an application by the applicants (“G & K”) to review the decision of the first respondent (“the Registrar”) that $186,147.50, being money held by the District Court of Queensland (the “money”) in file No 544 of 2007, in the Southport Registry be paid out to the second respondent (“Artworld”). G & K are said to be aggrieved by the…

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 Galacoast P/L & Anor v. McLeod & Anor 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: [2008] QSC 103
Decision Date: 27 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Galacoast P/L and another party, referred to as the applicants, brought a judicial review against McLeod and another party, referred to as the respondents, concerning the payment of funds into court. The applicants sought to challenge the decision of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland to pay the funds to the administrator of a company, alleging that the administrator had obtained the payment in breach of rule 567 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The applicants also claimed that the payment by the registrar under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 involved an error of law. The applicants argued that the administrator did not have the authority to receive the payment and that the real estate agent had a lien over the money held on trust.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the administrator obtained the payment of court in breach of rule 567 of UCPR. The applicants argued that the administrator did not have the authority to receive the payment and that the real estate agent had a lien over the money held on trust. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the payment was made in accordance with the relevant legislation and that the administrator had the authority to receive the payment. Another legal issue before the court was whether the payment by the registrar under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 involved an error of law.

The court held that the administrator did not obtain the payment of court in breach of rule 567 of UCPR. The court found that the administrator had the authority to receive the payment and that the real estate agent did not have a lien over the money held on trust. The court also held that the payment by the registrar under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 did not involve an error of law. The court found that sections 437, 440D, and 440G of the Corporations Act 2001 were inapplicable to the circumstances of the case. The applicants' claims were dismissed, and the second respondent was ordered to pay $186,147.50, with any accretions, into Southport District Court in action No 544 of 2007.

Orders

Orders of the court

Second respondent pay $186,147.50, with any accretions into Southport District Court in action No 544 of 2007

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:	Galacoast P/L & Anor v McLeod & Anor [2008] QSC 103
PARTIES:	GALACOAST PTY LTD ACN 053 364 435 trading as RAY WHITE BROADBEACH (First Applicant) KOLLOSCHE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 090 706 746 as trustee for the MK TRADING TRUST (Second Applicant) v BRUCE McLEOD (the Registrar of the District Court of Queensland at Southport) (First Respondent) ARTWORLD PTY LTD (Administrator appointed) ACN 010 239 326 (Second Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	4452 of 2008
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	27 May 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 May 2008
JUDGE:	Acting Justice Skoien
ORDER:	Second respondent pay $186,147.50, with any accretions into Southport District Court in action No 544 of 2007
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW – where real estate agent paid funds into court pending dispute litigation – where Registrar paid the money to administrator of a company – whether administrator obtained payment of court in breach of rule 567 of UCPR – whether payment by registrar under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 involved an error of law CORPORATIONS – VOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATION – PROTECTION OF COMPANY PROPERTY DURING ADMINISTRATION – where administrator obtained payment of court under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 – where ss 437, 440D, 440G were inapplicable CONVEYANCING – RELATIONSHIP OF VENDOR AND PURCHASER – MATTERS ARISING BETWEEN CONTRACTS AND CONVEYANCE – DEPOSIT, AGENT’S COMMISSION, ETC. – whether real estate agent owns, in law or in equity, the commission in its trust account upon completion of a sale – whether real estate agent had a lien over money held on trust Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 437D, s 440D, 440G Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, s 387, s 388(a)(ii), s 389(b) Trust Accounts Act 1973, s 12(4) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 561 Active Property Marketing Services (Aust) Pty Ltd t/as Alpha Realty v Joelco Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 167, considered Campbell v Smith (1887) 13 VLR 439, considered Danny Morris & Anor v The Ship “Kiama” [1998] FCA 256, cited Hammonds v Barclay (1802), 2 East 227, explained Hewett & Ors v Court and Anor (1983) 149 CLR 639, cited Nickelby Pty Ltd v Holden (1993) BC9402375, considered Tibmor Pty Ltd v Nashlyn Pty Ltd [1989] 1 Qd R 610, considered
COUNSEL:	Mr TA Houghton for the applicants Mr G Cranwell (solicitor) for the first respondent Mr C Wilson for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ramsden Faes Lawyers for the applicants CW Lohe Crown Solicitor for the first respondent Mullins Lawyers for the second respondent