Murdoch v Lake - [2014] QSC 142

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murdoch v Lake [2014] QSC 142

PARTIES:

MALCOLM ALEXANDER STEPHEN MURDOCH
(applicant)

v

STEPHEN MAURICE LINTON LAKE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS9994/14

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2014

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that, upon the undertaking of the defendant, by the defendant’s counsel, the amount of the costs order made by the Registrar on 16 May 2014:

1.          will be paid into HopgoodGanim’s trust account to be invested in an interest bearing account in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant;

2.          not be paid out until 14 days after the determination of the appeal in proceedings no 10070/13 in the Queensland Court of Appeal; and

3.          when paid out, be paid out to the party entitled to it following the determination of the appeal in proceedings no 10070/13 in the Queensland Court of Appeal together with any interest accrued thereon at that time.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER MATTERS – OTHER CASES – where the applicant and respondent have been engaged in complex litigation since 2010 based on events that occurred in 2003 – where the applicant brought a number of applications to amend pleadings – where upon bringing the third application the application was refused and the applicant’s claim was dismissed – where costs have been assessed and judgment entered for the defendant – where the applicant is in the process of appealing that decision in the Court of Appeal – where the applicant has also given instructions to have the costs assessment reviewed – where the applicant seeks a stay on the enforcement of that costs judgment pending the decision on appeal or the outcome of the costs review – whether a stay should be granted pending the outcome of either the appeal or the costs review

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 738, r 740, r 741, r 742, r 761, r 800

Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453
Croney v Nand [1999] 2 Qd R 342
Murdoch v Lake [2013] QSC 268
Murdoch v Lake (No 2) [2013] QSC 279
Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors (No 2) [2009] QCA 349

COUNSEL:

Dr A J Greinke for the applicant
M R Hodge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Morgan Conley Solicitors for the applicant
HopgoodGanim for the respondent

Wilson J: These proceedings relate back to 2003, and events that happened in a company called GBST Holdings Pty Ltd. Mr Murdoch says he was a director and shareholder of the company who was wrongfully induced to resign his directorship and relinquish his shares for a significant undervalue and that Mr Lake, the CEO, was instrumental in that.

Mr Murdoch had brought an action[1] claiming oppression as a shareholder, and for damages for wrongful dismissal.…

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 Murdoch v Lake

Details

AGLC: Murdoch v Lake [2014] QSC 142
Case: [2014] QSC 142
Decision Date: 26 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Murdoch v Lake involved a protracted legal dispute between the applicant and the respondent, with the origins of the conflict dating back to 2003. The matter has been before various courts since 2010, with the most recent events transpiring in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant had sought to amend the pleadings on multiple occasions, which culminated in the refusal of the third application and the dismissal of the applicant’s claim. Following this, the court entered a costs judgment in favour of the respondent, and the applicant has since lodged an appeal against this decision in the Queensland Court of Appeal. Additionally, the applicant has instructed a review of the costs assessment. The applicant now seeks a stay on the enforcement of the costs judgment pending the resolution of either the appeal or the costs review.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a stay of enforcement of the costs judgment should be granted, pending the outcome of the appeal or the costs review. The applicant argued that the enforcement of the costs judgment could potentially prejudice the outcome of the appeal or the costs review, whereas the respondent contended that the applicant had not demonstrated a compelling reason to warrant a stay. The court needed to balance the applicant’s interest in avoiding prejudice against the respondent’s interest in enforcing the judgment.

The court considered the principles governing stays of execution of costs judgments and the specific circumstances of the case. It acknowledged the applicant’s right to appeal and the procedural fairness inherent in the costs review process. The court determined that a stay was warranted to prevent potential prejudice to the applicant’s appeal and to maintain the integrity of the costs review process. The court ordered that the costs judgment be paid into a trust account and held there until the appeal or the costs review is resolved, with any accrued interest to be paid to the entitled party upon the determination of the appeal.

The court's final orders provided that the costs judgment would be held in a trust account, not to be disbursed until the appeal or the costs review is concluded. This decision was made upon an undertaking by the respondent’s counsel. The costs would then be paid to the entitled party, along with any accrued interest, once the appeal is determined.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that, upon the undertaking of the defendant, by the defendant’s counsel, the amount of the costs order made by the Registrar on 16 May 2014:

1. will be paid into HopgoodGanim’s trust account to be invested in an interest bearing account in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant;

2. not be paid out until 14 days after the determination of the appeal in proceedings no 10070/13 in the Queensland Court of Appeal; and

3. when paid out, be paid out to the party entitled to it following the determination of the appeal in proceedings no 10070/13 in the Queensland Court of Appeal together with any interest accrued thereon at that time.

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:	Murdoch v Lake [2014] QSC 142
PARTIES:	MALCOLM ALEXANDER STEPHEN MURDOCH (applicant) v STEPHEN MAURICE LINTON LAKE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS9994/14
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	26 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2014
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson J
ORDER:	The order of the court is that, upon the undertaking of the defendant, by the defendant’s counsel, the amount of the costs order made by the Registrar on 16 May 2014: 1. will be paid into HopgoodGanim’s trust account to be invested in an interest bearing account in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant; 2. not be paid out until 14 days after the determination of the appeal in proceedings no 10070/13 in the Queensland Court of Appeal; and 3. when paid out, be paid out to the party entitled to it following the determination of the appeal in proceedings no 10070/13 in the Queensland Court of Appeal together with any interest accrued thereon at that time.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER MATTERS – OTHER CASES – where the applicant and respondent have been engaged in complex litigation since 2010 based on events that occurred in 2003 – where the applicant brought a number of applications to amend pleadings – where upon bringing the third application the application was refused and the applicant’s claim was dismissed – where costs have been assessed and judgment entered for the defendant – where the applicant is in the process of appealing that decision in the Court of Appeal – where the applicant has also given instructions to have the costs assessment reviewed – where the applicant seeks a stay on the enforcement of that costs judgment pending the decision on appeal or the outcome of the costs review – whether a stay should be granted pending the outcome of either the appeal or the costs review Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 738, r 740, r 741, r 742, r 761, r 800 Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453 Croney v Nand [1999] 2 Qd R 342 Murdoch v Lake [2013] QSC 268 Murdoch v Lake (No 2) [2013] QSC 279 Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors (No 2) [2009] QCA 349
COUNSEL:	Dr A J Greinke for the applicant M R Hodge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Morgan Conley Solicitors for the applicant HopgoodGanim for the respondent