Moore (Scheme Administrator) v Ochkit Pty Ltd (No.2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Moore (Scheme Administrator) v Ochkit Pty Ltd (No.2) [2025] QSC 251

PARTIES:

DANIEL MOORE (SCHEME ADMINISTRATOR) AND TRUSTEE FOR THE BELBROOKE ADMINISTRATION TRUST AND BELBROOKE MORTGAGE TRUST

(applicant)

v
OCHKIT PTY LTD ACN 010 874 058

(first respondent)

TABRUBY PTY LTD ACN 010 371 061 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CAMPBELL SUPERANNUATION FUND
(second respondent)

MICHAEL LAWRENCE MASTERS AND DEBRA ANNE MASTERS AS TRUSTEES FOR THE SUPER HOLIDAY FUND
(third respondent)

BARRY CALDER DAHM AND JOAN DAHM AS TRUSTEES FOR THE BC
(fourth respondent)

STEPHEN GEORGE BLADES AND VALERIE
DAWN BLADES AS TRUSTEES

FOR THE CATCH22 SUPER FUND
(fifth respondent)

BELBROOKE PTY LTD CAN 159 775 336
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BELBROOKE
ADMINISTRATION TRUST

(sixth respondent)

BELBROOKE PTY LTD A.C.N. 159 775 336
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BELBROOKE

MORTGAGE TRUST
(seventh respondent)

WILLIAM JOHN HENRY HOUWING AND

CHRISTINE LESLEY HOUWING
(eighth respondent)

CHRISTINE LESLEY HOUWING ATF
FOR THE ROSEVALE DISCRETIONARY
TESTAMENTARY TRUST

(ninth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 11148/2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application, on the papers

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Treston J

ORDER:

1.   The eighth and ninth respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the application on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – where the application of the eighth and ninth respondents was dismissed – where the applicant seeks indemnity costs against the eighth and ninth respondents – where the eighth and ninth respondents are self-represented litigants – whether there should be a departure from the general rule – whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681

Hulme v Hulme [2023] NSWSC 299
Wentworth v Rogers [2003] NSWSC 944

COUNSEL:

D A Skennar KC for the applicant

Eighth and ninth respondents self-represented

SOLICITORS:

Morgan Conley Solicitors for the applicant

1. On 23 September 2025, I gave an ex tempore decision dismissing an application for declarations brought by Mr and Mrs Houwing (the eighth and ninth respondents), and the companies they represent in these proceedings.

2. Having dismissed the Houwings’ application, counsel for Mr Moore (the applicant) applied for a costs order on the basis that Mr and Mrs Houwing pay costs on the standard basis up to 16 May 2025, and thereafter on the indemnity basis.  That costs order is opposed by the Houwings.

3. In support of the application for standard costs, the applicant relied upon the starting proposition that the normal rule under r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”) is for costs to follow the event. But on 16 May 2025, the applicant delivered his response to the Houwings’ points of claim. That response document set out the basis upon which it was contended that the relief the Houwings sought was not available to them. The response identified that, as to whether the scheme was a…