SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | |
PARTIES: | STEPHEN JAMES PARBERY AND MICHAEL ANDREW OWEN IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF QUEENSLAND NICKEL PTY LTD (IN LIQ) (first plaintiffs) QUEENSLAND NICKEL PTY LTD (IN LIQ) (second plaintiff) JOHN RICHARD PARK, KELLY-ANNE LAVINA TRENFIELD & QUENTIN JAMES OLDE AS LIQUIDATORS OF QUEENSLAND NICKEL PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (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 (third defendant) CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER (fourth defendant) CLIVE THEODORE MENSINK (fifth defendant) IAN MAURICE FERGUSON (sixth defendant) MINERALOGY PTY LTD (seventh defendant) PALMER LEISURE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (eighth defendant) PALMER LEISURE COOLUM PTY LTD (ninth defendant)
(tenth defendant) CART PROVIDER PTY LTD (eleventh defendant) COEUR DE LION INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (twelfth defendant) COEUR DE LION HOLDINGS PTY LTD (thirteenth defendant) CLOSERIDGE PTY LTD (fourteenth defendant) WARATAH COAL PTY LTD (fifteenth defendant) CHINA FIRST PTY LTD (sixteenth defendant) COLD MOUNTAIN STUD PTY LTD (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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] QSC 125
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.