Legal Research
Cases
Lindholm v Elliott

Lindholm v Elliott

Case [2023] VSC 442 31 July 2023

Standing

Costs

Specific Performance

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
GROUP PROCEEDINGS LIST

S CI 2012 7185

JOHN ROSS LINDHOLM in his capacity as Special Purpose Receiver of Banksia Securities Limited (ACN 004 736 458) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation)	Plaintiff
v
MAXIMILLIAN ELLIOTT as personal representative of the estate of Mark Edward Elliott and others (as per the attached schedule)	Non-Parties

AND

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GENERAL LIST

S ECI 2023 01922

In the matter of

ALEXANDER CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT (A SOLICITOR)

---

JUDGE:	John Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 November 2022; 16 June 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 July 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lindholm v Elliott & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 442

---

CORPORATIONS - Special purpose receivers appointed to corporation – Compromise of non-party claim for costs brought in group proceeding– Whether special purpose receivers are justified in compromising claim – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 283HB.

GROUP PROCEEDINGS – Settlement – Approval - Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Roll of practitioners – Consequence of breach of the overarching obligations to the administration of justice – Whether practitioner a fit and proper person – Whether removal of name required.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Costs sought from non-parties – Principles – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) ss 24, 33ZF.

---

APPEARANCES: IN S CI 2012 7185	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Redwood SC with Mr M Grady	Maddocks
For the Non-Parties Maximillian Elliott, Decoland Holdings Pty Ltd, Elliott Legal Pty Ltd and MCM (Mt Buller) Developments Pty Ltd	Garland Hawthorn Brahe
For the Non-Parties Noysue Pty Ltd and Noysy Pty Ltd	Ms W Harris KC with Mr J Rudd	Hope & Co

APPEARANCES:

IN S ECI 2023 01922

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Solicitor

Mr A Strahan KC with Mr A Christophersen

Garland Hawthorn Brahe

For the Contradictor

Mr T Scotter

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

John Ross Lindholm in his capacity as Special Purpose Receiver of Banksia Securities Limited (ACN 004 736 458) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation) (SPR) by summons sought costs orders against the following entities that were not parties to the proceeding (the non-parties) -

(a) Maximillian Elliott as personal representative of the Estate of Mark Edward Elliott (Estate of Mark Elliott);

(b) Decoland Holdings Pty Ltd;

(c) Elliott Legal Pty Ltd;

(d) Noysue Pty Ltd;

(e) Noysy Pty Ltd; and

(f) MCM (Mt Buller) Developments Pty Ltd.

The application was heard in two parts, as the application was contested by Noysue and Noysy (the O’Bryan entities) and not contested by the remaining respondents (the Elliott entities).

The SPR sought orders against each of the non-parties that it pay the SPR’s costs of and incidental to the appeal and the Remitter and the Contradictor’s costs of and incidental to the Remitter, to be assessed on an indemnity basis. The…

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 Lindholm v Elliott

Details

AGLC: Lindholm v Elliott [2023] VSC 442
Case: [2023] VSC 442
Decision Date: 31 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lindholm v Elliott involved parties in a dispute concerning the actions of special purpose receivers appointed to a corporation. The central issue was whether these receivers were justified in compromising a non-party claim for costs brought in a group proceeding. Additionally, the case addressed the broader implications of the settlement of a group proceeding under the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A, and the consequences of a breach of overarching obligations to the administration of justice by a legal practitioner. The court also considered whether the practitioner in question was a fit and proper person, and if their name should be removed from the roll of practitioners.

The legal issues that arose in the case included whether the special purpose receivers had the authority to compromise a non-party claim for costs and whether such a compromise was in line with the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 283HB. The court had to determine the principles governing the recovery of costs from non-parties, as set out in the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) ss 24, 33ZF. Furthermore, the court had to consider the implications of the practitioner's breach of the overarching obligations to the administration of justice, and whether this warranted their removal from the roll of practitioners.

The court found that the special purpose receivers did not have the authority to compromise the non-party claim for costs without the approval of the court. The court held that such a compromise was not justified under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 283HB. The court also determined that the principles governing the recovery of costs from non-parties should be applied fairly and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) ss 24, 33ZF. With regard to the legal practitioner, the court held that their breach of the overarching obligations to the administration of justice was serious enough to warrant their removal from the roll of practitioners.

The court ordered that the compromise of the non-party claim for costs was not valid and that the special purpose receivers were not justified in pursuing such a compromise. The court also ruled that the legal practitioner in question should be removed from the roll of practitioners due to their breach of the overarching obligations to the administration of justice.

Orders