Gunderlong Mackay Pty Ltd v Simpkin (No 2) - [2025] QSC 48

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gunderlong Mackay Pty Ltd & Ors v Simpkin & Ors (No 2) [2025] QSC 48

PARTIES:

GUNDERLONG MACKAY PTY LTD
ACN 010 210 456

(first plaintiff)

MACKAY CAPITAL PTY LTD ACN 659 710 826 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SIMPKIN FAMILY TRUST

(second plaintiff)

FAYE EMILY SIMPKIN

(third plaintiff)

v

CRAIG NORMAN SIMPKIN

(first defendant)

CLP GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 632 782 131
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

10018 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

31 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Mackay

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

1.   The second defendant pay the sum of $15,352.03 to the first plaintiff.

2. The second defendant pay to the first plaintiff interest pursuant to section 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act on the sum of $15,352.03 from 22 August 2022 until 27 August 2024 in the sum of $2,277.24 with interest to accrue thereafter.

3. The first defendant deliver up to the first plaintiff the following items set out in Annexure A to the statement of claim: items 53D, 53E, 53K, 53M, 53O, 53P, 53Q, 53R, 53S, 53W, 53Y, 53AB, 53AV, 53AF and 53AI.

4. The first plaintiff is the owner of the following items set out in Annexure A to the statement of claim: items 53D, 53E, 53K, 53M, 53O, 53P, 53Q, 53R, 53S, 53W, 53Y, 53AB, 53AV, 53AF and 53AI.

5.   The third plaintiff and Reginald Simpkin are the owners of item 67 as set out in Annexure C to the statement of claim.

6.   The first, second and third plaintiffs are ordered to pay 75% of the first and second defendants standard costs

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – PARTIAL SUCCESS – where the parties provided further submissions on the issue of costs – where the defendant was successful in defending the substantive proportion of claims in the principal judgment – whether each party are entitled to the costs of the issues on which they succussed

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), r 5

Gunderlong Mackay Pty Ltd & Ors v Simpkin & Ors [2024] QSC 194
Gunderlong Mackay Pty Ltd & Ors v Simpkin & Ors [2024] QSC 193
Interchase Corporation Limited (in liquidation) v Grosvenor Hill (Queensland) Proprietary Limited (No 3) [2003] 1 Qd R 26
Kosho Pty Ltd & Anor v Trilogy Funds Management Ltd, Trilogy Funds Management Ltd & Ors v Fujino (No 2) [2013] QSC 170
Manwelland Pty Ltd v Dames & Moore Pty Ltd [2000] QSC 432

COUNSEL:

L Copley for the plaintiffs

M deWard for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Results Legal for the plaintiffs

Macrossan & Amiet for the respondents

Subsequent to the delivery of the principal judgment on 27th August 2024[1], all parties forwarded further submissions in respect of the form of orders and costs. The submissions showed that there was a clerical error in the principle judgment to be corrected under…

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 Gunderlong Mackay Pty Ltd v Simpkin (No 2) 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 48
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gunderlong Mackay Pty Ltd and two other plaintiffs brought proceedings against three defendants, including Simpkin, asserting claims for various breaches of contract, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference. The proceedings were heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary judgment resulted in the plaintiffs being successful on some claims, while the defendants defended and were successful on other claims. The court was subsequently required to determine the costs incurred by each party in relation to the issues on which they were successful.

The central legal issue before the court was the apportionment of costs between the parties. Both parties provided further submissions on the issue of costs, arguing for an entitlement to the costs of the issues on which they succeeded. The court needed to consider the principle that costs generally follow the event, and determine whether each party was entitled to the costs of the issues on which they were successful.

In its decision, the court considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, and found that the second defendant was successful in defending the substantive proportion of the claims. The court held that each party should bear their own costs for the issues on which they were unsuccessful, while the second defendant was liable to pay the costs of the issues on which the plaintiffs were successful. The court ordered the second defendant to pay the plaintiffs a specified sum of money, interest, and to deliver up specific items, while also confirming ownership of certain items for the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court ordered that the plaintiffs were to pay 75% of the defendants' standard costs.

The court’s orders reflect its decision that the second defendant was liable for the costs of the issues on which the plaintiffs were successful, while also addressing the ownership of specific items and apportioning the remaining costs between the parties. The final orders detail the financial payments and property transfers required as a result of the court’s determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The second defendant pay the sum of $15,352.03 to the first plaintiff.

2. The second defendant pay to the first plaintiff interest pursuant to section 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act on the sum of $15,352.03 from 22 August 2022 until 27 August 2024 in the sum of $2,277.24 with interest to accrue thereafter.

3. The first defendant deliver up to the first plaintiff the following items set out in Annexure A to the statement of claim: items 53D, 53E, 53K, 53M, 53O, 53P, 53Q, 53R, 53S, 53W, 53Y, 53AB, 53AV, 53AF and 53AI.

4. The first plaintiff is the owner of the following items set out in Annexure A to the statement of claim: items 53D, 53E, 53K, 53M, 53O, 53P, 53Q, 53R, 53S, 53W, 53Y, 53AB, 53AV, 53AF and 53AI.

5. The third plaintiff and Reginald Simpkin are the owners of item 67 as set out in Annexure C to the statement of claim.

6. The first, second and third plaintiffs are ordered to pay 75% of the first and second defendants standard costs

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:	Gunderlong Mackay Pty Ltd & Ors v Simpkin & Ors (No 2) [2025] QSC 48
PARTIES:	GUNDERLONG MACKAY PTY LTD ACN 010 210 456 (first plaintiff) MACKAY CAPITAL PTY LTD ACN 659 710 826 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SIMPKIN FAMILY TRUST (second plaintiff) FAYE EMILY SIMPKIN (third plaintiff) v CRAIG NORMAN SIMPKIN (first defendant) CLP GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 632 782 131 (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	10018 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	31 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Mackay
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
JUDGE:	Crow J
ORDER:	1. The second defendant pay the sum of $15,352.03 to the first plaintiff. 2. The second defendant pay to the first plaintiff interest pursuant to section 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act on the sum of $15,352.03 from 22 August 2022 until 27 August 2024 in the sum of $2,277.24 with interest to accrue thereafter. 3. The first defendant deliver up to the first plaintiff the following items set out in Annexure A to the statement of claim: items 53D, 53E, 53K, 53M, 53O, 53P, 53Q, 53R, 53S, 53W, 53Y, 53AB, 53AV, 53AF and 53AI. 4. The first plaintiff is the owner of the following items set out in Annexure A to the statement of claim: items 53D, 53E, 53K, 53M, 53O, 53P, 53Q, 53R, 53S, 53W, 53Y, 53AB, 53AV, 53AF and 53AI. 5. The third plaintiff and Reginald Simpkin are the owners of item 67 as set out in Annexure C to the statement of claim. 6. The first, second and third plaintiffs are ordered to pay 75% of the first and second defendants standard costs
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – PARTIAL SUCCESS – where the parties provided further submissions on the issue of costs – where the defendant was successful in defending the substantive proportion of claims in the principal judgment – whether each party are entitled to the costs of the issues on which they succussed Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), r 5 Gunderlong Mackay Pty Ltd & Ors v Simpkin & Ors [2024] QSC 194 Gunderlong Mackay Pty Ltd & Ors v Simpkin & Ors [2024] QSC 193 Interchase Corporation Limited (in liquidation) v Grosvenor Hill (Queensland) Proprietary Limited (No 3) [2003] 1 Qd R 26 Kosho Pty Ltd & Anor v Trilogy Funds Management Ltd, Trilogy Funds Management Ltd & Ors v Fujino (No 2) [2013] QSC 170 Manwelland Pty Ltd v Dames & Moore Pty Ltd [2000] QSC 432
COUNSEL:	L Copley for the plaintiffs M deWard for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Results Legal for the plaintiffs Macrossan & Amiet for the respondents