Kimberley College Ltd v Thomson

[2019] QSC 227

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kimberley College Ltd v Thomson & Ors [2019] QSC 227

PARTIES:

KIMBERLEY COLLEGE LTD
ACN 080 765 760

(plaintiff)

v
PAUL THOMSON
(first defendant)
AMY FERGUSON
(second defendant)
KEVIN FERGUSON
(third defendant)
JENNIFER THOMSON
(fourth defendant)
DEBORAH HORN

(fifth defendant)

FILE NO:

BS No 3151 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2019

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

1.    On the defendant’s application, the plaintiff is to provide further and better particulars of Schedules A and B. Otherwise the application is dismissed.

2.    The plaintiff’s application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff alleges a variety of types of misconduct against the defendants – where the defendants contend that the statement of claim is insufficiently particularised and should therefore be struck out – where the plaintiff contends in reply that there are matters solely within the knowledge of the defendants or unknown third parties – where the plaintiff otherwise relies upon lengthy and detailed financial reports created by forensic accountants – whether the plaintiff’s statement of claim is insufficiently particularised – whether the statement of claim should be struck out in whole or part – whether the plaintiff should provide further and better particulars

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff alleges a variety of types of misconduct against the defendants – where the plaintiff further alleges that the defendants have been attempting to dispose of certain chattels and real property – where the plaintiff contends that a commercially prudent person would infer a danger of default on behalf of the defendants – whether a freezing order should be made

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 149, r 171, r 250, r 260A

Arnold and Butler v Bottomley & Ors [1908] 2 KB 151, cited

Lyons v Kern Constructions (Townsville) Pty Ltd (1983) 47 ALR 114, cited

Parbery & Ors v QNI Metals Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QSC 107, applied

Ross v Blake’s Motors [1951] 2 All ER 689, cited

WA Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman (1980) 41 FLR 175, cited

COUNSEL:

BA Hall for the plaintiff

T Morris QC for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Minter Ellison Gold Coast for the plaintiff

Australian Law Partners for the defendant

1. There are two applications before the court. The plaintiff seeks a freezing order against the defendants. The defendants apply to strike out the whole of the statement of claim or particular parts of the statement of claim or that further and better particulars be provided.

   The parties

2. Kimberley College Ltd conducts an independent college at Carbrook in South East Queensland. It is funded mainly by the Commonwealth and the State and, to a lesser extent, by fee paying students.…