Laguna Quays Resort Principal Body Corporate v Laguna Quays Resort Primary Thoroughfare Body Corporate (No 2)

[2013] QSC 308

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Laguna Quays Resort Principal Body Corporate v Laguna Quays Resort Primary Thoroughfare Body Corporate & Ors (No 2) [2013] QSC 308
PARTIES:	LAGUNA QUAYS RESORT PRINCIPAL BODY CORPORATE ABN 75 243 598 244 (plaintiff) v LAGUNA QUAYS RESORT PRIMARY THOROUGHFARE BODY CORPORATE ABN 62 180 246 142 (first defendant) and LQ MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 074 744 976 (second defendant) and LAGUNA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 092 398 617 (third defendant) and TURTLE POINT HOTEL AND SPA PTY LTD ACN 108 479 723 (fourth defendant) and LAGUNA AUSTRALIA AIRPORT PTY LTD ACN 094 660 616 (fifth defendant) and LAGUNA WHITSUNDAYS AIRPORT PTY LTD ACN 145 751 300 (sixth defendant) and KUNAPIPI PASTORAL PTY LTD ACN 111 098 876 (seventh defendant) and ASD LAGUNA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 078 360 228 (eighth defendant) and FULLSHARE INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) TURTLE POINT HOTEL PTY LTD ACN 164 341 413 (ninth defendant)  and FULLSHARE INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) QUEENS HILL PTY LTD ACN 164 348 350 (tenth defendant) and FULLSHARE INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PANDANUS PTY LTD ACN 164 339 146 (eleventh defendant) and FULLSHARE INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) MARINA PTY LTD ACN 164 338 925 (twelfth defendant) and FULLSHARE INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) VILLAGE PTY LTD ACN 164 347 095 (thirteenth defendant) and FULLSHARE INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) TURTLE POINT GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB PTY LTD ACN 164 339 682 (fourteenth defendant)
FILE NO:	2187 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	7 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21  October 2013
JUDGE:	Applegarth J
ORDER:	Ruling on objections
COUNSEL:	D E F Chesterman for the plaintiff D R Tucker (Solicitor) for the first defendant M T de Waard for the second to fourth and sixth to fourteenth defendants
SOLICITORS:	Nicholsons Solicitors for the plaintiff Tucker & Cowan for the first defendant McKay Solicitors for the second to fourth and sixth to fourteenth defendants

1. This is my ruling on objections to certain paragraphs of the affidavit of Ms Roughton filed 26 March 2012.  When these objections were raised on the morning of the hearing, it was resolved that the more efficient course, in terms of saving court time, was for Counsel for the plaintiff to submit a response in writing to the defendants’ objections.  This occurred.  Ms Roughton was not required by the defendants for cross-examination. 

1. Her affidavit was filed at a time when the plaintiff was seeking appointment of receivers to the first defendant. 

1. As I have previously stated, the fact that development has occurred on later stages and that issues have arisen over voting entitlements, provides a background to the hearing.  In addition, the fact of development has a relevance to the issue of whether initial plans of subdivision had been lodged. 

1. As appears from my reasons, I found it unnecessary to refer to the contents of Ms Roughton’s affidavit other than to the extent it provides a background to why disputes over voting entitlements have arisen.  Because of my limited reliance upon it, my rulings on the objections will be necessarily brief.  The plaintiff conceded a number of the objections.

1. Paragraph 12:  the fact that other body corporate schemes at the same level as Principal within the hierarchy are essentially the commercial arms of the Resort is relevant by way of background.

1. The plaintiff acknowledges that paragraphs 13 to 16 are not directly relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them. 

1. Most of paragraph 18 is relevant, by way of background, to explain the genesis of the proceeding and the uncertainty about whether the Marina Precinct which had been operating when Ms Roughton bought her unit in 2002 had voting entitlements. The last sentence of paragraph 18 relates to Ms Roughton’s belief, which is irrelevant and I disregard it.

1. The first two sentences in paragraph 19 are in the nature of a submission, and I disregard them. The balance of the paragraph has the same relevance as paragraph 18.

1. Paragraph 20 is relevant.  The existence or not of a body corporate in respect of the Marina Precinct has a potential relevance to voting entitlements, and the final sentence in paragraph 20 explains the genesis of the proceedings.

1. Paragraph 21 is relevant to the issue of voting entitlements in Stage 2.

1. Paragraphs 23 to 28 have the same limited relevance as paragraph 20.  The plaintiff accepts that paragraphs 29 to 54 are not directly relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them.

1. Paragraph 55 has the same limited relevance as paragraph 20. 

1. The plaintiff accepts that paragraphs 57 to 67 are not relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them. 

1. The plaintiff accepts that paragraphs 70 to 98 are not relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them.

1. The plaintiff accepts that paragraphs 100 to 119 are not relevant to the separate questions, and I disregard them.