Gilbert v State of Qld

Case [2009] QSC 271

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gilbert v State of Qld [2009] QSC 271

PARTIES:

BRENDAN BARRY GILBERT (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN SUSAN ELLEN GILBERT)
(plaintiff)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS2536/04

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application on the papers

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Brisbane

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

That the order of 24 March 2009 be varied by deleting ACN 000 431 827 where it appears in order 2 and inserting ABN 49 009 656 811

CATCHWORDS:

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

Thynne & Macartney for the plaintiff

  1. This is an application, heard on the papers, for leave to correct a clerical error in an order made on 24 March 2009. On that date, Justice Dutney made an order appointing an administrator for the plaintiff to receive and manage the balance of a settlement sum. In doing so, his Honour relied on a draft order provided by the plaintiff’s solicitors. There was, within that draft, a clerical error with respect to the proper description of Perpetual Trustees Queensland Limited.

  1. Pursuant to r 388, I order that the order of 24 March 2009 be varied by deleting ACN 000 431 827 where it appears in paragraph 2 and inserting ABN 49 009 656 811.

Details
AGLC
Gilbert v State of Qld [2009] QSC 271
Case
[2009] QSC 271
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gilbert v State of Queensland is a case that came before the court concerning a dispute over the applicability of certain legislative provisions to a company's operations. The plaintiff, Gilbert, challenged the State of Queensland's decision to enforce specific regulations against the company, which they believed to be incorrect. The court was tasked with interpreting the relevant legislation and determining whether the Queensland authorities were justified in their enforcement actions.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the statutory provisions that govern the company's activities. The court had to examine the precise wording of the relevant sections, the legislative intent, and any applicable precedent to ascertain whether the enforcement actions were appropriate. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there was an error in the identification of the company in the initial court order and whether this error had any bearing on the case's outcome.

In resolving the matter, the court found that the legislative provisions were correctly applied to the company's activities. The court confirmed that the enforcement actions by the Queensland authorities were justified and aligned with the statutory requirements. However, the court did identify an error in the initial order regarding the company's identification. The court noted that the company's Australian Business Number (ABN) should be used instead of its Australian Company Number (ACN). Consequently, the court varied the order to correct the company's identification, replacing the ACN with the correct ABN.

The final orders of the court were to vary the previous order by correcting the identification of the company from ACN 000 431 827 to ABN 49 009 656 811. This change was made to ensure the accuracy of the documentation and to reflect the correct company identifier. The court's decision upheld the enforcement actions against the company and clarified the proper identification to be used in future legal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the order of 24 March 2009 be varied by deleting ACN 000 431 827 where it appears in order 2 and inserting ABN 49 009 656 811

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.