Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd - [2018] QSC 177

[2018] QSC 177

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

BOND J

SC No 6593 of 2017

STEPHEN JAMES PARBERY AND MICHAEL ANDREW OWEN IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF QUEENSLAND NICKEL PTY LTD (IN LIQ) ACN 009 842 068	First Plaintiffs
QUEENSLAND NICKEL PTY LTD (IN LIQ) ACN 009 842 068	Second Plaintiff
JOHN RICHARD PARK, KELLY-ANNE LAVINA TRENFIELD & QUENTIN JAMES OLDE AS LIQUIDATORS OF QUEENSLAND NICKEL PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 009 842 068	Third Plaintiffs
QNI METALS PTY LTD ACN 066 656 175	First Defendant
QNI RESOURCES PTY LTD ACN 054 117 921	Second Defendant
QUEENSLAND NICKEL SALES PTY LTD ACN 009 872 566	Third Defendant
CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER	Fourth Defendant
CLIVE THEODORE MENSINK	Fifth Defendant
IAN MAURICE FERGUSON	Sixth Defendant
MINERALOGY PTY LTD ACN 010 582 680	Seventh Defendant
PALMER LEISURE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 152 386 617	Eighth Defendant
PALMER LEISURE COOLUM PTY LTD ACN 146 828 122	Ninth Defendant
FAIRWAY COAL PTY LTD ACN 127 220 642	Tenth Defendant
CART PROVIDER PTY LTD ACN 119 455 837	Eleventh Defendant
COEUR DE LION INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 006 334 872	Twelfth Defendant
COEUR DE LION HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 003 209 934	Thirteenth Defendant
CLOSERIDGE PTY LTD ACN 010 560 157	Fourteenth Defendant
WARATAH COAL PTY LTD ACN 114 165 669	Fifteenth Defendant
CHINA FIRST PTY LTD ACN 135 588 411	Sixteenth Defendant
COLD MOUNTAIN STUD PTY LTD ACN 119 455 248	Seventeenth Defendant
EVGENIA BEDNOVA	Eighteenth Defendant
ALEXANDAR GUEORGUIEV SOKOLOV	Nineteenth Defendant
ZHENGHONG ZHANG	Twentieth Defendant
SCI LE COEUR DE L’OCEAN	Twenty-first Defendant
DOMENIC MARTINO	Twenty-second Defendant
MARCUS WILLIAM AYRES	First Defendant added by counterclaim
STEFAN DOPKING	Second Defendant added by counterclaim

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 27 JULY 2018

JUDGMENT

BOND J: In April of this year I made directions concerning disclosure which contemplated these steps:

The plaintiffs would put forward a detailed proposal on 25 May.
The defendants would respond in detail on 22 June.
The parties would meet on 29 June to discuss the proposals.
On 6 July the parties would notify the Court of the terms of the proposed consent order or file an application to resolve the disputed aspects of the proposal that had been put forward.

The plaintiffs complied with the direction and put forward a detailed proposal. Only desultory response was provided by the defendants.

Essentially, they were taking the view, as expressed in correspondence, that it was premature to deal with disclosure until pleadings had closed and until a recusal application, which had been foreshadowed, was brought and disposed of. It is plain that it did not lie in the mouths of the defendants to take that stance. An order had been made. It had been in place for months. The appropriate response, if the defendants wanted variation, was to approach the court and obtain that variation.

The plaintiffs brought the application for an order, in effect, confirming and making applicable their proposal. There not having been any compliance with orders it was, in my judgment, appropriate for…

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 Parbery v QNI Metals 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: [2018] QSC 177
Decision Date: 27 JULY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd involved a dispute among several parties, including liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd, and multiple defendants, with Clive Palmer being a prominent figure. The plaintiffs, acting as liquidators, sought an order to confirm a disclosure proposal, which the defendants had not adequately responded to. The defendants, particularly Clive Palmer, argued that they required more time to properly address the disclosure issues, given their involvement in other litigation matters and the complexity of the case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to enforce the plaintiffs' disclosure proposal immediately or to grant the defendants an adjournment to adequately prepare their response. The court needed to balance the plaintiffs' right to timely information against the defendants' need for additional time to address the complex disclosure requirements, especially considering Clive Palmer's status as a litigant in person.

The court decided to adjourn the plaintiffs' application for an order on disclosure until 3 August 2018. The decision was based on the need to ensure that the defendants, particularly Clive Palmer, could adequately prepare a response given the complexity of the litigation and their other commitments. The court emphasised that the adjournment was necessary to facilitate effective cooperation from the defendants in the disclosure process. However, the plaintiffs were to be compensated for the costs of the adjournment, with the broader costs issues reserved for later determination.

This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that all parties in complex litigation have a fair opportunity to present their positions, while also recognising the need for efficient case management.

Orders