Naskam Security Services Pty Ltd v Adarm Security Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[2000] QDC 441

PARTIES:	NASKAM SECURITY SERVICES PTY LTD (Plaintiff/Applicant) and ADARM SECURITY PTY LTD (First Defendant) and ALAN DAVID HOLDER and ROBYN HOLDER (Second Defendant) and ADAR (HOLDINGS) PTY LTD (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Plaint No. 167 of 1999
PROCEEDING:	Chamber application
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	21 August 2000
JUDGE:	K S Dodds DCJ
ORDER:	Order as per draft initialled by His Honour and placed with the papers.
COUNSEL:	D A Quayle for the plaintiff applicant G Barr (solicitor) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Kimball Wood for the plaintiff Butler McDermott and Egan for the respondent

1. This is an application by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 247 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR), for a stay to a notice of non-party disclosure operating pursuant to Rule 246 to be lifted.

1. There was a related application by the present respondent on 29 November 1999. That application sought leave to object to the plaintiff’s notice of non-party disclosure because the seven day time limit under Rule 245 UCPR had expired. On 2 December 1999, leave was granted and it was indicated the objection must be upheld. The proceeding was adjourned for the plaintiff to consider whether to seek an order pursuant to Rule 247(2)(b) UCPR.

1. Since, the plaintiff has amended its statement of claim (the second amended statement of claim) and issued a fresh notice requiring non-party disclosure which is the subject of the present proceeding.

1. The plaintiff in the action is a company providing security systems and services. It sued the first defendant which is also a company providing security services and the second defendant who are the directors and shareholders of the first defendant for breach of two agreements whereby it alleged it licensed the first defendant to use the plaintiff’s alarm systems and licensed the first defendant to use the plaintiff’s protective services systems both within a designated territory (the Caboolture Shire). It alleged the type of business conducted under the alarm system licensing agreement was the provision and installation of burglar alarm systems within the territory. It alleged the type of business conducted under the protective services licensing agreement was the provision of patrol and response security services to premises within the territory. It alleged that pursuant to the alarm system licensing agreement as varied, the first defendant could purchase alarm equipment from sources other than the plaintiff and pay a commission being 20 per cent of the sale price of alarms installed by the first defendant in the event the plaintiff was not to monitor the alarm. It alleged that pursuant to the protective services licensing agreement, the first defendant had the sole right to operate the protective services system within the territory and would pay a continuing license fee to the plaintiff from the date on which the first defendant achieved a designated minimum performance criteria, being $1500 per week. It alleged it was a term of both agreements that the first defendant “would ensure…