John Richard Park v Lanray Industries Pty Ltd - [2010] QSC 82

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

John Richard Park & Anor v Lanray Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] QSC 82

PARTIES:

JOHN RICHARD PARK AND LACHLAN STUART MCINTOSH

Plaintiff

v

LANRAY INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ACN 010 737 943

First Defendant

SUNSHINE IMPORTS PTY LTD ACN 009 937 722

Second Defendant

ROUGHEND PINEAPPLE PTY LTD ACN 074 982 558

Third Defendant

SUNSHINE LAND NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 010 050 567

Fourth Defendant

THE KING OF NUTS PTY LTD ACN 085 903 895

Fifth Defendant

ROOFHILL PTY LTD ACN 078 777 867

Sixth Defendant

SUNFARM PTY LTD ACN 091 286 967

Seventh Defendant

FILE NO/S:

BS No. 5675 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2010

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

The respondents/plaintiffs have leave to file a further amended statement of claim consistent with these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - STRIKING OUT - Practice under Rules of Court - Parties - Other matters - Capacity to sue - Liquidators

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 286(1), s 477(2), s 588E, , s 588FF, s 588FH, s 588M

Corporations Law 2002

Judiciary Act 1903

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 18, r 69

Banque, Commerciale SA (in liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279

Christianos v Aldridge Pty Ltd (1995) 18 ACSR 272

David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353

Greig & Duff as liquidators of Australian Building Industries Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2003] QCA 298

NRNQ v NEQ Nickel Pty Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 592

Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221

Re Harris Scarfe Ltd (2006) 24 ACLC 1034

Re Jackaroo Agencies Pty Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 332

Sibroll Pty Ltd v Mitch Properties Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 579

Thiess Pty Ltd v FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 209

Zempilas v JN Taylor Holdings Pty Ltd (1991) 5 ACSR 28

COUNSEL:

DP Rangiah SC for the applicants/defendants

P Dunning SC and J Meredith for the respondents/plaintiffs

SOLICITORS:

Piper Alderman for the defendants

Sajen Legal for the plaintiffs

The plaintiffs are the liquidators of the company ACN 009 826 528 formerly known as Sunshine Plantation Pty Ltd (“the Company”) which operated the tourist attraction “The Big Pineapple”.

The defendants have applied to the court for orders that the claim and amended statement of claim filed 22 October 2008 be struck out in whole or in part.

The pleadings allege that by virtue of s 588E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the company was insolvent due to its failure to maintain financial records as required by s 286(1).

The defendants’ complaint, in brief, is the identity of the plaintiffs and/or the capacity in which they sue. The claims by the liquidators relate to various alleged uncommercial payments and/or voidable transactions that took place in October 2003 shortly prior to their appointment as administrators and, following, the company entering into liquidation and…

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.

Continue reading John Richard Park v Lanray Industries Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: John Richard Park v Lanray Industries Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 82
Case: [2010] QSC 82
Decision Date: 18 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of John Richard Park against Lanray Industries Pty Ltd, the dispute arose before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Mr. John Richard Park, sought damages for alleged breaches of duty and misleading or deceptive conduct by the defendant, Lanray Industries. The case hinged on the capacity of Mr. Park to sue and whether the appropriate procedures were followed in filing the claim.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the plaintiff had the requisite standing to bring the action, particularly given that he was acting as a liquidator of a company that was potentially insolvent. The court also had to determine if there were procedural errors in the way the statement of claim was filed, which could warrant striking out the claim under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the claims were within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The court examined the procedural rules and relevant legislative provisions, including the Corporations Act 2001 and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. It considered the capacity of the plaintiff to sue, which was contingent upon his status as a liquidator and whether he had standing under the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act. The court held that Mr. Park, as a liquidator, did indeed have the standing to bring the action on behalf of the company. Regarding the procedural aspects, the court found that while there were some initial deficiencies in the way the claim was filed, these could be rectified through an amended statement of claim. The court concluded that the claims were within its jurisdiction and should not be struck out.

Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiff to file a further amended statement of claim that addressed the identified issues. This decision enabled the plaintiff to proceed with his action, subject to the requirements set out in the reasons for judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondents/plaintiffs have leave to file a further amended statement of claim consistent with these reasons.

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:	John Richard Park & Anor v Lanray Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] QSC 82
PARTIES:	JOHN RICHARD PARK AND LACHLAN STUART MCINTOSH Plaintiff v LANRAY INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ACN 010 737 943 First Defendant SUNSHINE IMPORTS PTY LTD ACN 009 937 722 Second Defendant ROUGHEND PINEAPPLE PTY LTD ACN 074 982 558 Third Defendant SUNSHINE LAND NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 010 050 567 Fourth Defendant THE KING OF NUTS PTY LTD ACN 085 903 895 Fifth Defendant ROOFHILL PTY LTD ACN 078 777 867 Sixth Defendant SUNFARM PTY LTD ACN 091 286 967 Seventh Defendant
FILE NO/S:	BS No. 5675 of 2006
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 March 2010
JUDGE:	White J
ORDER:	The respondents/plaintiffs have leave to file a further amended statement of claim consistent with these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE - STRIKING OUT - Practice under Rules of Court - Parties - Other matters - Capacity to sue - Liquidators Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 286(1), s 477(2), s 588E, , s 588FF, s 588FH, s 588M Corporations Law 2002 Judiciary Act 1903 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 18, r 69 Banque, Commerciale SA (in liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 Christianos v Aldridge Pty Ltd (1995) 18 ACSR 272 David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 Greig & Duff as liquidators of Australian Building Industries Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2003] QCA 298 NRNQ v NEQ Nickel Pty Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 592 Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 Re Harris Scarfe Ltd (2006) 24 ACLC 1034 Re Jackaroo Agencies Pty Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 332 Sibroll Pty Ltd v Mitch Properties Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 579 Thiess Pty Ltd v FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 209 Zempilas v JN Taylor Holdings Pty Ltd (1991) 5 ACSR 28
COUNSEL:	DP Rangiah SC for the applicants/defendants P Dunning SC and J Meredith for the respondents/plaintiffs
SOLICITORS:	Piper Alderman for the defendants Sajen Legal for the plaintiffs