Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parbery & Ors v QNI Metals Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QSC 125

PARTIES:

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)

v  

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)

ALEXANDER 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)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 6593 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

25 May 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2018

JUDGE:

Bond J

ORDER:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – GENERALLY – where judgment delivered on an interlocutory application in a proceeding – where judgment imposed freezing orders on certain defendants in the proceeding – where defendants applied for a 21-day interim stay of the orders to provide time to consider the reasons for judgment pending a full application for a stay pending appeal – whether the undertakings offered by the defendants constituted a sufficient change in circumstances – whether the calculus of the interests of justice has changed following the delivery of judgment – whether the interests of justice justify an interim stay

COUNSEL:

T Sullivan QC for the plaintiffs

K A Barlow QC for the eighth to fourteenth defendants

D O’Sullivan QC for the first, second, fourth, seventh, fifteenth and sixteenth defendants

SOLICITORS:

King & Wood Mallesons for the plaintiffs

Robinson Neilson for the eighth to fourteenth defendants

Alexander Law for the first, second, fourth, seventh, fifteenth and sixteenth defendants

HIS HONOUR:  I published a judgment today, making orders in effect granting freezing orders on the…

CaseChat AU logo

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 125
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parbery sought to enforce a settlement reached in a previous proceeding against QNI Metals and others. The dispute centred on whether certain assets were subject to the settlement and whether freezing orders should be imposed on the defendants. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants applied for a 21-day interim stay of the freezing orders to allow them time to consider the reasons for the judgment and to prepare a full application for a stay pending appeal. The court had to determine if the defendants' undertakings constituted a sufficient change in circumstances and if the interests of justice warranted an interim stay. The court considered the defendants' undertakings and whether they provided a sufficient basis for an interim stay. The court also weighed the balance of convenience and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff if the stay was granted. Ultimately, the court found that the defendants' undertakings did not amount to a sufficient change in circumstances and that the interests of justice did not favour an interim stay. The application was dismissed, and the freezing orders remained in place.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the defendants had not provided sufficient evidence to justify an interim stay, and that the balance of convenience and the interests of justice favoured maintaining the freezing orders. The court also noted that the defendants had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from the continuation of the orders. The court's decision was therefore in line with the principles of justice and fairness, and reflected the importance of enforcing settlements and protecting the rights of creditors. The court's decision was a clear and well-reasoned application of the law to the facts of the case, and provided important guidance for future cases involving similar issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

The 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.