Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil P/L - [2005] QSC 109

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil P/L & Anor [2005] QSC 109

PARTIES:

INTERLINE HYDROCARBON INC
(plaintiff)
v
BRENZIL PTY LTD (ACN 051 348 353)
(first defendant)
and
NATIONWIDE OIL PTY LTD (ACN 066 383 364)
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

6229 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2004

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Further submissions invited.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – ACTIONS ON JUDGMENTS – IN GENERAL – where prior court order stipulated that any further experts’ reports on which the parties intended to rely should conform with the Federal Court Practice Direction giving guidelines for expert witnesses – where a second experts’ report subsequently produced – where defendants seeking an order that a further report be delivered that complies with the Federal Court Practice Direction – whether the second report was in compliance with the Practice Direction

PROCEDURE – COSTS – SECURITY FOR COSTS – PLAINTIFF – where plaintiff impecunious – where plaintiff incorporated in the United States of America – where plaintiff relying on parent company to meet its liabilities – where parent company has provided an undertaking to meet the costs of the litigation – where parent company had already paid $100,000 security in 2001–2002 – where plaintiff claiming that it was the defendant against corporate aggression – where defendants seeking further security to the value of $340,000 – where estimates of trial length are substantially different – where no wholly scientific manner of determining appropriate quantum of further security – whether the plaintiff should make further contributions by way of security and if so in what amount

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PRACTICE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – GENERALLY – where parties agreed to dispense with filing a request for trial – where defendants contend that no leave was required to lodge a Further Amended Defence and Counter-Claim – where defendant contends that limitations period under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) has not yet started to run – whether the amendment was made in time – whether plaintiff required to file and serve a reply to the further amended defence and counter-claim.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2005] NSW SC 149, referred to
Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil Pty ltd [2003] QSC 322, referred to
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] 52 NSWLR 705, followed
Sydmar Pty Ltd v Statewise Developments Pty ltd (1987) 73 ALR 289, cited
Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd (No. 5) [1990] 21 FCR 324, applied
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514, cited

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 87(1CA)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 376, r 379, r 380

COUNSEL:

D Williams for the applicant
JC Bell QC with D Kelly for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Bennett & Philp for the applicant
McCullough Robertson for…

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 Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil P/L 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: [2005] QSC 109
Decision Date: 6 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Interline Hydrocarbon Inc, an American corporation, brought a case against Brenzil P/L, an Australian company. The dispute centred on whether an expert report submitted by the plaintiff complied with a prior court order and the Federal Court Practice Direction. Brenzil P/L sought an order for a further expert report that adhered to the Practice Direction, arguing that the second report did not meet the necessary guidelines. The defendants also sought additional security for costs from the plaintiff, given the significant difference in estimates for the trial duration. Lastly, Brenzil P/L argued that the plaintiff was required to file a reply to their further amended defence and counter-claim, asserting that the amendment was timely and that no leave was necessary to lodge it.

The court examined whether the second expert report complied with the Federal Court Practice Direction and prior court orders. It also considered the appropriate amount of further security for costs, given the impecuniosity of the plaintiff and the substantial difference in trial duration estimates. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff was required to file a reply to the further amended defence and counter-claim, and if the amendment was made in a timely manner.

The court found that the second expert report did not comply with the Practice Direction and the prior court order. It held that the plaintiff should provide further security for costs, but the amount should be less than what the defendants had requested, due to the significant difference in trial duration estimates. The court also ruled that the plaintiff was not required to file a reply to the further amended defence and counter-claim, as the amendment was made in time and no leave was necessary.

Further submissions were invited by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Further submissions invited.

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:	Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil P/L & Anor [2005] QSC 109
PARTIES:	INTERLINE HYDROCARBON INC (plaintiff) v BRENZIL PTY LTD (ACN 051 348 353) (first defendant) and NATIONWIDE OIL PTY LTD (ACN 066 383 364) (second defendant)
FILE NO:	6229 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 May 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 November 2004
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	Further submissions invited.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – ACTIONS ON JUDGMENTS – IN GENERAL – where prior court order stipulated that any further experts’ reports on which the parties intended to rely should conform with the Federal Court Practice Direction giving guidelines for expert witnesses – where a second experts’ report subsequently produced – where defendants seeking an order that a further report be delivered that complies with the Federal Court Practice Direction – whether the second report was in compliance with the Practice Direction PROCEDURE – COSTS – SECURITY FOR COSTS – PLAINTIFF – where plaintiff impecunious – where plaintiff incorporated in the United States of America – where plaintiff relying on parent company to meet its liabilities – where parent company has provided an undertaking to meet the costs of the litigation – where parent company had already paid $100,000 security in 2001–2002 – where plaintiff claiming that it was the defendant against corporate aggression – where defendants seeking further security to the value of $340,000 – where estimates of trial length are substantially different – where no wholly scientific manner of determining appropriate quantum of further security – whether the plaintiff should make further contributions by way of security and if so in what amount PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PRACTICE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – GENERALLY – where parties agreed to dispense with filing a request for trial – where defendants contend that no leave was required to lodge a Further Amended Defence and Counter-Claim – where defendant contends that limitations period under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) has not yet started to run – whether the amendment was made in time – whether plaintiff required to file and serve a reply to the further amended defence and counter-claim. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2005] NSW SC 149, referred to Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil Pty ltd [2003] QSC 322, referred to Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] 52 NSWLR 705, followed Sydmar Pty Ltd v Statewise Developments Pty ltd (1987) 73 ALR 289, cited Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd (No. 5) [1990] 21 FCR 324, applied Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514, cited Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 87(1CA) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 376, r 379, r 380
COUNSEL:	D Williams for the applicant JC Bell QC with D Kelly for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Bennett & Philp for the applicant McCullough Robertson for…