Moreton Resources Ltd (in liq) v First Samuel Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Moreton Resources Ltd (in liq) & Ors v First Samuel Ltd & Ors [2020] QSC 381

PARTIES:

MORETON RESOURCES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 060 111 784

(first applicant)
and
MRV METALS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(RECEIVERS APPOINTED)
ACN 610 100 402
(second applicant)
and
GRANT DENE SPARKS AND DAVID MICHAEL ORR IN THEIR CAPACITY AS JOINT AND SEVERAL
LIQUIDATORS OF MORETON RESOURCES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 060 111 784 AND MRV METALS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECEIVERS APPOINTED) ACN 610 100 402
(third applicants)

v
FIRST SAMUEL LIMITED ACN 086 243 567 IN ITS
OWN RIGHT AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS SECURITY
TRUSTEE OF THE MORETON SECURITY TRUST
(first respondent)
and
PHILIP ANTHONY FEITELSON
(second respondent)
and
A & J CONSULTANCY PTY LTD ACN 002 962 503
(third respondent)
and
ZINC OXIDE (AUST) PTY LTD ACN 009 744 692
(fourth respondent)
and
DARRYL EDWARD KIRK AND MATTHEW LESLIE JOINER IN THEIR CAPACITY AS RECEIVERS OF MRV METALS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECEIVERS APPOINTED) ACN 610 100 402
(fifth respondents)

FILE NO/S:

10147/20

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Flanagan J

ORDER:

1.    The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the originating application and the amended originating application.

2.    The third applicants bear their own costs of complying with the subpoena issued on 12 October 2020.

COUNSEL:

K E Downes QC with A J Schriiffer for the applicants
G R Coveney for the first respondent
G A Thompson QC SG with A G Psaltis for the second, third and fifth respondents

SOLICITORS:

Norton Rose Fulbright for the applicants
HWL Ebsworth for the first respondent
Colin Biggers & Paisley for the second, third and fifth respondents

1. On 13 November 2020, the Court ordered that the applicants’ amended originating application filed 21 October 2020 be dismissed and that the Court would hear the parties as to costs.

2. The parties have filed written submissions in relation to costs.

3. The parties accept that the applicants should pay the respondents’ costs of the originating application and the amended originating application.  There will be an order to this effect.  There are two further issues as to costs raised by the applicants and the first respondent.

   The third applicants’ costs of complying with a subpoena issued on behalf of the second, third and fifth respondents

4. On 12 October 2020, the second, third and fifth respondents caused a subpoena to be issued to the third applicants.  The subpoena sought the following categories of documents for production:

   “1.All documents relating to the marketing campaign for the sale of the assets of MRV Metals Pty Ltd (including all the shares in MRV Metals Pty Ltd) (the MRV assets) undertaken by you, in your capacities as both joint and several voluntary administrators and joint and several liquidators of MRV Metals Pty Ltd;

   2.All documents exchanged between you (and by representatives on your behalf) with…