Lee v Abedian

Case [2017] QSC 22

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lee v Abedian & Ors [2017] QSC 22

PARTIES:

MARCUS RAMON LEE

(plaintiff)

v

SOHEIL ABEDIAN

(first defendant)

DAVID SCOTT BROWN

(second defendant)

RONALD JOHN EAMES

(third defendant)

PAUL EDWARD BAXTER, RODNEY GRAEME BESLEY, ANTHONY JAMES BUTLER, PHILIP JOHN BYRNES, DREW ANTHONY CASTLEY, ANTHONY JAMES CONAGHAN, BENTLEY SEAN COOGAN, JAMES BUCHANAN DANIEL, PHILIP BRIAN DOWLING, JAMES PATRICK FEEHELY, ANDREW ROBERTSON FORBES, EUGENE YUK-KWAN FUNG, ALISON BERESFORD HALY, ANDREW JAMES KELLY, MICHAEL FINDLAY MARSHALL, MARTIN DENNIS McENIERY, SAMANTHA JANE O’BRIEN, CHRISTOPHER JOHN O’SHEA, ROGER WILLIAM QUICK, SEAN ANTHONY SULLIVAN, LAWRENCE NEIL WARD

(fourth defendants)

SUNLAND GROUP LIMITED

(fifth defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 982 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for stay

DELIVERED ON:

1 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 February 2017

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to r 800 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) enforcement of the two orders made by the Deputy Registrar on 22 September 2016 be stayed until the determination of the proceeding, or earlier order;

2.    The application filed 1 November 2016 to review cost assessment decisions be adjourned to a date to be fixed, with the costs of and incidental to that application being reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiff seeks to stay the enforcement of costs orders made in two interlocutory applications until the determination of the principal proceeding – where the costs were assessed in excess of $215,000 – whether a party will be prejudiced by the grant or refusal of a stay – whether a stay should be granted
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 60, s 116

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 4, sch 1

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 4, r 682, r 702, r 740, r 800

BHP Coal Pty Ltd and Ors v O & K Orenstein & Koppel AG and Ors (No 2) [2009] QSC 64, cited

Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453, cited

Croney v Nand [1999] 2 Qd R 342, cited

Harpur v Ariadne Australia Ltd [1984] 2 Qd R 523, cited

Lee v Abedian & Ors [2016] QSC 92, cited

Lee v Abedian & Ors (No 2) [2016] QSC 114, cited

Mbuzi v Hall [2010] QSC 359, cited

Stanley v Phillips (1966) 115 CLR 470, cited

Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd & Anor v Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2012] VSC 239, cited

The Beach Retreat Pty Ltd v Mooloolaba Marina Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 357, cited

Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky (No 2) [2009] QCA 349, cited

COUNSEL:

W Sofronoff QC for the plaintiff

D G Clothier QC for the first, second, third and fifth defendants

SOLICITORS:

Shand Taylor Lawyers for the plaintiff

Holding Redlich for the first, second, third and fifth defendants

  1. Mr Lee was ordered to pay the Sunland defendants’ costs of:

    (a)an…

Continue reading Lee v Abedian

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lee v Abedian [2017] QSC 22
Case
[2017] QSC 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lee v Abedian, the plaintiff sought to stay the enforcement of costs orders made in two interlocutory applications until the determination of the principal proceeding. The costs, assessed in excess of $215,000, were in dispute and the plaintiff argued that a stay was necessary to avoid prejudice. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff aimed to delay the enforcement of these substantial costs pending the outcome of the main case.

The legal issues before the court were whether a party would be prejudiced by the grant or refusal of a stay, and whether a stay should be granted under the circumstances. The plaintiff contended that a stay was necessary to prevent significant financial prejudice, whereas the defendant opposed the stay, arguing that the enforcement of the costs orders should proceed as they had been properly assessed.

The court considered the principles governing the stay of costs in interlocutory proceedings and the potential prejudice to either party if the stay was granted or denied. It noted the substantial amount involved and the importance of ensuring that justice is done in the case. After weighing the arguments, the court concluded that it was appropriate to stay the enforcement of the costs orders until the determination of the proceeding to prevent potential prejudice to the plaintiff. The application to review the cost assessment decisions was adjourned, with the costs of that application being reserved.

The court's orders were to stay the enforcement of the two costs orders made by the Deputy Registrar until the determination of the proceeding, and to adjourn the application to review the cost assessment decisions, reserving the costs of that application. This decision ensures that the substantial financial implications of the interlocutory costs are considered in the context of the overall case, pending its final resolution.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 800 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) enforcement of the two orders made by the Deputy Registrar on 22 September 2016 be stayed until the determination of the proceeding, or earlier order;

2. The application filed 1 November 2016 to review cost assessment decisions be adjourned to a date to be fixed, with the costs of and incidental to that application being reserved.

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.