Morat Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Hoft Pty Ltd - [2014] QCA 319

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morat Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Hoft Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QCA 319

PARTIES:

MORAT PHARMACEUTICALS PTY LTD
ACN 111 674 018
(applicant)
v
HOFT PTY LTD
ACN 080 089 121
(first respondent)
BODY CORPORATE FOR FAIRTHORPE COMMUNITY
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5123 of 2014
QCAT No 258 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. That the application for leave to appeal be refused.

2. That the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the first respondent filed an application for adjudication under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) seeking an order that a meeting of the body corporate or a resolution purportedly passed at that meeting be declared void or, in the alternative, an order that votes cast by two proprietors declared “unfinancial” at the meeting be admitted and counted – where the application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was dismissed – where the first respondent appealed to the Appeal Tribunal of QCAT, seeking an order that the adjudicator’s order be set aside and that the resolution be declared void –where the QCAT appeal was allowed and the subject resolution was declared void – where the applicant appealed to this Court against the Appeal Tribunal’s decision – whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in law by misconstruing the adjudicator’s reasons – whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness – whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in law by not taking into account relevant considerations – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 242(2)(a), s 243(2)(b), s 244, s 276

Cominos v Cominos (1972) 127 CLR 588; [1972] HCA 54, cited
PMT Partners Pty Ltd (In liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301; [1995] HCA 36, cited
Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 164 CLR 513; [1987] HCA 48, considered
Talga Ltd v MBC International Ltd (1976) 133 CLR 622; [1976] HCA 22, cited
Tooheys Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1961) 105 CLR 602; [1961] HCA 35, considered

COUNSEL:

M M Stewart QC, with S J Carius, for the applicant
A Vasta QC, with P J Trout, for the first respondent
A Redburn for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Warlow Scott Lawyers for the applicant
Dare Lawyers for the first respondent
Active Lawyers and Consultants for the second respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Muir JA and the orders he proposes.

MUIR JA

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Morat Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Hoft Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QCA 319
Decision Date: 2 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morat Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Hoft Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding an application for adjudication under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld). The first respondent, Hoft Pty Ltd, had filed an application seeking an order that a meeting of the body corporate or a resolution purportedly passed at that meeting be declared void, or, in the alternative, that votes cast by two proprietors declared “unfinancial” at the meeting be admitted and counted. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application, but the first respondent appealed to the Appeal Tribunal of the QCAT, which set aside the adjudicator’s order and declared the resolution void. Morat Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd then appealed to the Court against the Appeal Tribunal’s decision.

The key legal issues before the Court were whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in law by misconstruing the adjudicator’s reasons, whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness, and whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in law by not taking into account relevant considerations. Additionally, the Court considered whether leave to appeal should be granted.

In its judgment, the Court found that the Appeal Tribunal did not err in law and correctly interpreted the adjudicator’s reasons. The Court held that the Appeal Tribunal did not deny the applicant procedural fairness and that it had properly considered all relevant matters. The Court concluded that the Appeal Tribunal’s decision was sound and there was no basis for allowing the appeal or granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application for leave to appeal be refused.

2. That the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

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.

CITATION:	Morat Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Hoft Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QCA 319
PARTIES:	MORAT PHARMACEUTICALS PTY LTD ACN 111 674 018 (applicant) v HOFT PTY LTD ACN 080 089 121 (first respondent) BODY CORPORATE FOR FAIRTHORPE COMMUNITY (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5123 of 2014 QCAT No 258 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
ORIGINATING COURT:	Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 November 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Muir JJA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. That the application for leave to appeal be refused. 2. That the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the first respondent filed an application for adjudication under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) seeking an order that a meeting of the body corporate or a resolution purportedly passed at that meeting be declared void or, in the alternative, an order that votes cast by two proprietors declared “unfinancial” at the meeting be admitted and counted – where the application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was dismissed – where the first respondent appealed to the Appeal Tribunal of QCAT, seeking an order that the adjudicator’s order be set aside and that the resolution be declared void –where the QCAT appeal was allowed and the subject resolution was declared void – where the applicant appealed to this Court against the Appeal Tribunal’s decision – whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in law by misconstruing the adjudicator’s reasons – whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness – whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in law by not taking into account relevant considerations – whether leave to appeal should be granted Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 242(2)(a), s 243(2)(b), s 244, s 276 Cominos v Cominos (1972) 127 CLR 588; [1972] HCA 54, cited PMT Partners Pty Ltd (In liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301; [1995] HCA 36, cited Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 164 CLR 513; [1987] HCA 48, considered Talga Ltd v MBC International Ltd (1976) 133 CLR 622; [1976] HCA 22, cited Tooheys Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1961) 105 CLR 602; [1961] HCA 35, considered
COUNSEL:	M M Stewart QC, with S J Carius, for the applicant A Vasta QC, with P J Trout, for the first respondent A Redburn for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Warlow Scott Lawyers for the applicant Dare Lawyers for the first respondent Active Lawyers and Consultants for the second respondent