Papale v Sucrogen Ltd - [2015] QSC 192

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Papale & Ors v Sucrogen Ltd [2015] QSC 192

PARTIES:

R PAPALE & V J PAPALE (trading as VJ & R PAPALE); GK & MR STOCKHAM; JORDAN FARMING (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 126 223 532 as trustee for the JORDAN FARMING TRUST; PHILIP MARANO as trustee for the G MARANO FAMILY TRUST (trading as P J & G MARANO) AND OTHERS
(plaintiffs)

v

SUCROGEN LIMITED
ACN 098 999 985
(defendant)

GK & MR STOCKHAM AND OTHERS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
(defendants by counterclaim)

FILE NO:

BS11630/12

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

Order delivered on 18 June 2015
Reasons delivered on 1 July 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2015

JUDGE:

Bond J

ORDER:

Delivered ex tempore on 18 June 2015.

The order of the court is that the defendant’s application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PARTIES – THIRD PARTY AND SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s conduct was a breach of its contractual obligations, or alternatively, unconscionable – where the defendant alleges that the conduct of the proposed third party, QSL, lead to the breach alleged by the plaintiff – where the defendant brought an application to join QSL as a third party to the plaintiff’s proceeding – where the issues are relatively distinct – where the defendant’s proposed course of action would introduce complication, cost and delay – where there was delay in bringing this application – whether QSL ought be joined as a third party to this proceeding

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – OTHER MATTERS – where the defendant seeks an order that the plaintiff’s proceeding and its separate proceeding to be commenced against QSL be heard together – where the issues are relatively distinct –where there was delay in bringing this application – whether these proceedings ought be heard together

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 79, r 194(2)

MGM Containers v Wockner[2006] QCA 502

COUNSEL:

D Pyle for the plaintiffs
A Crowe QC, with D Chesterman, for the defendant
A Pomerenke QC, with L Clark, for the proposed third party

SOLICITORS:

Clayton Utz for the plaintiffs
Russell Law for the defendant
Allens Arthur Robinson for the proposed third party

Introduction

The plaintiffs are a group of 316 sugar growers. They have sued the defendant – a sugar miller – seeking some $10.3 million in damages as a consequence of conduct which occurred in late 2010 and early 2011.
The growers’ proceeding has been on foot since December 2012. It is on the supervised case list and is being managed by Justice Flanagan. His Honour has set the proceeding down for an 8 day trial on 30 November 2015 before Justice Daubney.
By an application filed on 22 May 2015 and heard on 18 June 2015, the miller sought –
(a)leave to join Queensland Sugar Limited…

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 Papale v Sucrogen Ltd

Details

AGLC: Papale v Sucrogen Ltd [2015] QSC 192
Case: [2015] QSC 192
Decision Date: 1 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Papale v Sucrogen Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Papale, and the defendant, Sucrogen Ltd. Papale alleged that Sucrogen Ltd had breached its contractual obligations or, in the alternative, acted unconscionably. Sucrogen Ltd, on the other hand, sought to introduce a proposed third party, QSL, into the proceedings, claiming that QSL's conduct was the cause of the alleged breach. Sucrogen Ltd made an application to join QSL as a third party in Papale's proceeding. The application also sought an order for the plaintiff’s proceeding and a separate proceeding against QSL to be heard together. The court had to determine whether QSL should be joined as a third party and whether the two proceedings should be consolidated.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's application to join QSL as a third party should be granted and whether the two separate proceedings should be consolidated. The court considered the nature of the issues involved, the potential for complications, costs, and delays, and the timeliness of the defendant's application. The court examined whether the issues were distinct enough to warrant separate proceedings and whether the defendant's application was made in a timely manner.

In dismissing the application, the court held that the issues presented were relatively distinct and warranted separate proceedings. It found that the defendant's proposed course of action would introduce unnecessary complications, costs, and delays. Additionally, the court noted the delay in bringing the application, which further supported the decision to dismiss it. The court concluded that joining QSL as a third party and consolidating the proceedings would not be in the interests of justice.

The court ordered that the defendant’s application to join QSL as a third party and to consolidate the proceedings be dismissed. The plaintiff's proceeding and the defendant's separate proceeding against QSL were to remain separate, with each proceeding being heard independently. The decision underscored the importance of timely applications and the need to avoid unnecessary complications in litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 18 June 2015.

The order of the court is that the defendant’s application is dismissed.

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:	Papale & Ors v Sucrogen Ltd [2015] QSC 192
PARTIES:	R PAPALE & V J PAPALE (trading as VJ & R PAPALE); GK & MR STOCKHAM; JORDAN FARMING (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 126 223 532 as trustee for the JORDAN FARMING TRUST; PHILIP MARANO as trustee for the G MARANO FAMILY TRUST (trading as P J & G MARANO) AND OTHERS (plaintiffs) v SUCROGEN LIMITED ACN 098 999 985 (defendant) GK & MR STOCKHAM AND OTHERS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE (defendants by counterclaim)
FILE NO:	BS11630/12
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	Order delivered on 18 June 2015 Reasons delivered on 1 July 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 June 2015
JUDGE:	Bond J
ORDER:	Delivered ex tempore on 18 June 2015. The order of the court is that the defendant’s application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PARTIES – THIRD PARTY AND SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s conduct was a breach of its contractual obligations, or alternatively, unconscionable – where the defendant alleges that the conduct of the proposed third party, QSL, lead to the breach alleged by the plaintiff – where the defendant brought an application to join QSL as a third party to the plaintiff’s proceeding – where the issues are relatively distinct – where the defendant’s proposed course of action would introduce complication, cost and delay – where there was delay in bringing this application – whether QSL ought be joined as a third party to this proceeding PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – OTHER MATTERS – where the defendant seeks an order that the plaintiff’s proceeding and its separate proceeding to be commenced against QSL be heard together – where the issues are relatively distinct –where there was delay in bringing this application – whether these proceedings ought be heard together Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 79, r 194(2) MGM Containers v Wockner[2006] QCA 502
COUNSEL:	D Pyle for the plaintiffs A Crowe QC, with D Chesterman, for the defendant A Pomerenke QC, with L Clark, for the proposed third party
SOLICITORS:	Clayton Utz for the plaintiffs Russell Law for the defendant Allens Arthur Robinson for the proposed third party