GBA Operations Pty Ltd v QC Communications Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

GBA Operations Pty Ltd v QC Communications Pty Ltd [2025] QDC 58

PARTIES:

GBA OPERATIONS PTY LTD
(Plaintiff/Respondent)

v

QC COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD
(Defendant)

And

PETER ANTHONY COLLEY

(Third Party/Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

D80/2024

DIVISION:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

7 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 May 2025

JUDGE:

Barlow KC, DCJ

ORDERS:

The amended application filed on 1 May 2025 be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – PARTICULAR CONTEMPTS – BREACH OF UNDERTAKING TO COURT – application to dismiss summarily – the third party/applicant contends that the undertaking was not given by the defendant to the court but as part of an inter partes agreement to avoid an application for a freezing order – the original undertaking was not filed in the court – the plaintiff/respondent filed an affidavit exhibiting a copy of the undertaking and the associated correspondence – whether the undertaking was given to the court –  whether a breach of it may be in contempt of court – whether the contempt application should be dismissed summarily

LEGISLATION:

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 ss 68, 69

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 5

CASES:

Goodberry Holdings Pty Ltd v Senatore [2005] ACTSC 141, distinguished
Housewives United Buyers’ Cooperative Ltd v Trustees of the Sisters of St Joseph (1980) 42 FLR 106, distinguished
O’Conner v Hough [2016] 2 Qd R 543, distinguished
Oswal v Burrup Holdings Ltd (No 2) (2012) 208 FCR 425, distinguished
Srotyr v Clissold [2015] NSWSC 1770, considered
Thomson Australian Holding Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1981) 148 CLR 150, distinguished
U & I Global Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd v Tasman-Warajay Pty Ltd (1995) 60 FCR 26, distinguished

COUNSEL:

A O’Brien & G Yates for the plaintiff

P O’Brien for the third party

SOLICITORS:

K2 Law for the plaintiff

JHK Legal for the third party

Contents

Summary

Factual background

Mr Colley’s submissions

GBA’s submissions

Consideration

Conclusion

Summary

1. The plaintiff (GBA) originally sued the defendant (QCC) for $543,114.74 as money paid under a mistake of fact, or damages for breach of contract.  That part of the proceeding was stayed upon QCC entering voluntary administration on 19 November 2024.  It remains stayed as QCC is now under the control of administrators under a deed of company arrangement.

2. The third party (Mr Colley) was not, in fact, joined by QCC as a third party, but is the respondent to an application filed by GBA on 6 December 2024, in which it seeks orders that Mr Colley be punished for contempt of court.[1]  That application was, until recently, listed for hearing by me on 30 May 2025, though that hearing has now been vacated.

   [1]Strictly speaking, he probably should have been joined as second defendant in the proceeding, but nothing turns on how he has been brought before the court.

3. Briefly, the contempt alleged by GBA is to the effect that Mr Colley, as the sole director of…