SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Mackellar Mining Equipment Pty Ltd & Ors v Thornton & Ors [2019] QCA 77
PARTIES:
MACKELLAR MINING EQUIPMENT PTY LTD
ACN 010 398 428
DRAMATIC INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 059 863 204
trading as PARTNERSHIP 818
(first appellant/applicant)
JANET ELIZABETH WRIGHT
(second appellant/applicant)
v
TRAD THORNTON
(first respondent)
SHANE URQUHART
(second respondent)
ELIZABETH URQUHART
(third respondent)
FIONA NORRIS
(fourth respondent)
MIMIA WHAP
(fifth respondent)
GLENDON WOOSUP
(sixth respondent)
DEREECE WHAP
(seventh respondent)
TABUA WOOSUP
(eighth respondent)
RITA WHAP
(ninth respondent)
RAMSLEY WOOSUP
(tenth respondent)
OLIVE JOYCE BAGIE
(eleventh respondent)
DANIEL HUDSON
(twelfth respondent)
FLORENCE KEPA
(thirteenth respondent)
BETINA KEPA
(fourteenth respondent)
LEON BOWIE
(fifteenth respondent)
RENIA BOWIE
(sixteenth respondent)
SOLOMON BOWIE
(seventeenth respondent)
FRED BOWIE
(eighteenth respondent)
KALIS KEPA
(nineteenth respondent)
ERRIS ESELI
(twentieth respondent)
ANNIE BOWIE
(twenty-first respondent)
STEPHEN ROPEYARN
(twenty-second respondent)
LUCY ROPEYARN
(twenty-third respondent)
FRANCIS BOWIE
(twenty-fourth respondent)
JOHNNY TAMWOOY
(twenty-fifth respondent)
DALE BOWIE
(twenty-sixth respondent)
FLOSSIE BOWIE
(twenty-seventh respondent)
ELIZABETH STEPHEN
(twenty-eighth respondent)
MARYANNE MIRIAM STEPHEN
(twenty-ninth respondent)
CAROLINE THOMASINA STEPHEN
(thirtieth respondent)
RUBY GLORIA ROSEANNE STEPHEN
(thirty-first respondent)
FANNY MALETA FLORA NORA STEPHEN
(thirty-second respondent)
EMMIA FRANCES NOBBY HELENA STEPHEN
(thirty-third respondent)
FREDRICKA LOUISA KRIS
(thirty-fourth respondent)
RIM THOMAS JOE NATAPUI STEPHEN
(thirty-fifth respondent)
WANAKI MOOKA
(thirty-sixth respondent)
PADIALA KRIS
(thirty-seventh respondent)
EMAIMA KRIS
(thirty-eighth respondent)
EMILY KEPA
(thirty-ninth respondent)
SEBASTIAN BILLY
(fortieth respondent)
JOSEPH BILLY
(forty-first respondent)
KATRINA BILLY
(forty-second respondent)
GORDON SOLOMON
(forty-third respondent)
GLORIA SOLOMON
(forty-fourth respondent)
LIONEL SOLOMON
(forty-fifth respondent)
BESSIE BILLY
(forty-sixth respondent)
GILLIAN HURST
(forty-seventh respondent)
TAMLIN HARRIS
(forty-eighth respondent)
MARY GREEN
(forty-ninth respondent)
KERRI SONTER
(fiftieth respondent)
JANET MAREE LEWIS
(fifty-first respondent)
STEVEN LEWIS
(fifty-second respondent)
BEN LEWIS
(fifty-third respondent)
MELISSA BRADY
(fifty-fourth respondent)
JOHN HOTCHIN
(fifty-fifth respondent)
JANE HOTCHIN
(fifty-sixth respondent)
GREGORY ROBERT HOTCHIN
(fifty-seventh respondent)
DENISE J. KALIN
(fifty-eighth respondent)
ROGER DOWN
(fifty-ninth respondent)
MARY ESELI
(sixtieth respondent)
LEONARD ROBERT HOTCHIN
(sixty-first respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 9627 of 2018
SC No 2252 of 2017DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
Miscellaneous Application – CivilORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 186 (A Lyons SJA)DELIVERED ON:
7 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19 November 2018; 27 March 2019
JUDGES:
Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Boddice J
ORDERS:
1. Leave to reopen the hearing of the appeal refused.
2. Appeal dismissed.
3. Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the application and the appeal.
CATCHWORDS
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – RESTRAINT OF PROCEEDINGS – OF FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS: ANTI SUIT INJUNCTIONS – GENERALLY – where a plane crash in North Queensland killed two pilots and 13 passengers – where the respondents, relatives of the deceased pilots and passengers, commenced proceedings against the appellants in Missouri in May 2008 – where the appellants brought an application in March 2017 in the Queensland Supreme Court for, inter alia, a permanent anti-suit injunction in respect of the Missouri proceedings – where the primary judge found that the appellants had delayed in seeking injunctive relief, and that the…
Continue reading Mackellar Mining Equipment Pty Ltd v Thornton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mackellar Mining Equipment Pty Ltd v Thornton [2019] QCA 77
- Case
- [2019] QCA 77
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in her findings in relation to the delay, the applicability of Australian law, and the readiness of the Missouri proceedings for trial. The court was also required to decide whether these findings formed part of the reasoning to refuse the application for a permanent anti-suit injunction. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the Missouri proceedings were vexatious or oppressive. The court was further required to determine whether the appeal could be reopened to adduce further evidence, and if so, whether such evidence, if led, would probably have an important influence on the result of the appeal.
The court found that the primary judge did not err in her findings in relation to the delay, the applicability of Australian law, and the readiness of the Missouri proceedings for trial. The court found that these findings formed part of the reasoning to refuse the application for a permanent anti-suit injunction. The court also found that the Missouri proceedings were not vexatious or oppressive. The court found that the circumstances did not warrant the reopening of the appeal to adduce further evidence, and that even if the evidence was led, it would not probably have an important influence on the result of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application and the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to reopen the hearing of the appeal refused.
2. Appeal dismissed.
3. Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the application and the appeal.
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.