Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd v Hanson - [2018] QSC 190

[2018] QSC 190

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

BOND J

SC No 4392 of 2015

GOOMBOORIAN TRANSPORT PTY LTD ACN 011 054 658	First Plaintiff
J & M LOGHANDLING PTY LTD ACN 011 054 667	Second Plaintiff
BELLING INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 123 710 734	Third Plaintiff
GOOMBOORIAN LOGGING PTY LTD ACN 076 970	Fourth Plaintiff
LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD ACN 086 875 845	Fifth Plaintiff
EMMERDALE FARMING PTY LTD ACN 151 515 909	Sixth Plaintiff
JILRAY PTY LTD ACN 058 181 463 J & M FARMING PTY LTD ACN 086 991 291 J & M FARMING PTY LTD and LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD ABN 89 152 178 639 JOHN GERHARD BELLING MARLENE ANNE BELLING ESTATE OF NORMA RENEE HANSON, DECEASED	Seventh Plaintiff Eighth Plaintiff Ninth Plaintiff Tenth Plaintiff Eleventh Plaintiff First Defendant
DOROTHY MAUREEN HANSON	Second Defendant
NORMAN RICHARD HANSON	Third Defendant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 14 AUGUST 2018

JUDGMENT

BOND J: Earlier this afternoon I pronounced further orders in this proceeding, the effect of which was:

(a)to require certain super funds to be converted into money;
(b)to require trust moneys to be taken out of a solicitor’s trust account and paid over to the third and sixth plaintiffs;
(c)to cause a car to be delivered over; and
(d) to cause statutory trustees for sale in respect of a family home to be appointed within seven days after today.

An application for an interim stay of those orders is now sought by the second and third defendants. They seek a stay until 4 pm on 24 August 2018 or earlier order, it being contemplated that by that time the plaintiffs will be in a position to argue out all the issues relevant to continuing that stay until determination of the appeal which has been lodged on behalf of the second and third defendants in respect of my judgment in Goomboorian Transport Proprietary Limited v Hanson [2018] QSC 135.

There are competing undertakings offered.

In support of the stay, the second and third defendants undertake through their counsel:

(a) to maintain the undertakings provided by their counsel to this court on 19 June 2015;
(b) until further order or agreement with the plaintiffs, not to deal with any of the funds held on their behalf in the Big Law/Lawyers trust account; and
(c) that they will maintain the registration and insurance for the Mercedes-Benz A-Class motor vehicle (VIN WDD1 17343N154473) and will otherwise store it in a shed on their property and not use it.

For their part, in resisting the interim stay application, the third and sixth plaintiffs offer these undertakings:

(a) that they will cause all amounts received by them pursuant to my order to be paid into the trust account of Griffith Hack Lawyers, to be held on trust by Griffith Hack Lawyers until disposition of proceeding number 7390 of 2018 in the Court of Appeal (“the appeal”) or earlier order, but which amounts may be invested by Griffith Hack Lawyers on such…

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 Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd v Hanson 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: [2018] QSC 190
Decision Date: 14 AUGUST 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard an application for an interim stay by the second and third defendants in the case of Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd v Hanson. The defendants sought to stay the orders made by Bond J on 14 August 2018, which required the conversion of certain superannuation funds into money, the transfer of trust moneys to the third and sixth plaintiffs, the delivery of a car, and the appointment of statutory trustees for sale of a family home. The plaintiffs opposed the stay, offering their own undertakings in response. The court considered the principles governing an application for a stay, focusing on whether there was a good arguable case on appeal and the balance of disadvantage if the stay was granted or denied. The court found that there was a good arguable case on appeal and that the balance of disadvantage favoured granting the interim stay on the defendants' proposed undertakings.

The court examined the merits of the appeal, acknowledging that there was a good arguable case for the appeal to succeed. However, the court also considered the balance of disadvantage, noting that the plaintiffs would not suffer any particular disadvantage if the stay was not granted, while the defendants could face significant prejudice if the orders were enforced. The court highlighted the potential for tax disadvantages if the superannuation funds were converted into money and the real prejudice of selling the family home. The court determined that these factors warranted a temporary stay of the orders until the full argument on the application for a stay pending appeal could be heard. The court granted the interim stay on the proposed undertakings of the second and third defendants, pending further argument on 24 August 2018. The court also ordered that the costs of the application for a stay be reserved and directed the parties to file their material and written submissions by specified dates.

Orders