Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd - [2018] QSC 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parbery & Anor v QNI Metals Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QSC 83

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 plaintiff)

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 plaintiff)

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)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 6593 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application – Civil

DELIVERED ON:

26 April 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 April 2018

JUDGE:

Bond J

ORDER:

The orders of the Court are:

1.        In this order the terms used have the meanings identified in the glossary which is schedule 1 to the order made in the consolidated proceeding on 19 April 2018.

2.        Subject to any further order of the Court, and on the condition that the QN parties are to be represented by the same counsel (at any one time) at all future steps in the consolidated proceeding, Queensland Nickel has leave to be represented by two solicitors on the record being the solicitors presently on the record for the General Purpose Liquidators and the Special Purpose Liquidators.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION – LEGAL REPRESENTATION – GENERALLY – where there are two sets of liquidators appointed to a company being wound up in insolvency – where each set of liquidators has a separate solicitors’ firm on the record – whether the company should have leave to be represented by two solicitors on the record, being the two solicitors on the record for each set of liquidators

Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Brendas [2010] FCAFC 125, applied
Cart Provider Pty Ltd v Park [2016] QSC…

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 83
Decision Date: 26 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd involves a dispute about the representation of a company in liquidation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the Court was whether the company, Queensland Nickel Industries Pty Ltd (QNI), which was in liquidation, could be represented by two sets of solicitors in the ongoing consolidated proceeding. The liquidators of the company were divided into two groups: General Purpose Liquidators and Special Purpose Liquidators. Each group of liquidators was represented by a separate solicitors' firm.

The Court had to decide if the company, QNI, should be permitted to be represented by two separate solicitors' firms on the record, one for each set of liquidators. The central legal question was whether this dual representation was permissible under the rules governing legal representation in civil proceedings, particularly in the context of a company in liquidation. The Court examined the rules and precedents to determine if such dual representation was an exception or if it was generally prohibited.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered the practicalities and complexities of the consolidated proceeding, as well as the necessity for efficient administration of justice. The Court concluded that, subject to certain conditions, allowing QNI to be represented by two sets of solicitors was appropriate. The Court imposed a condition that both sets of liquidators be represented by the same counsel at any one time to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or confusion. The Court's decision was aimed at ensuring that the proceedings were conducted fairly and efficiently while accommodating the unique circumstances of the case.

The Court granted leave for QNI to be represented by two solicitors' firms, subject to the condition that both sets of liquidators be represented by the same counsel at all future steps in the consolidated proceeding. This decision facilitated the administration of the liquidation process and aimed to prevent any potential delays or complications in the ongoing legal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

1. In this order the terms used have the meanings identified in the glossary which is schedule 1 to the order made in the consolidated proceeding on 19 April 2018.

2. Subject to any further order of the Court, and on the condition that the QN parties are to be represented by the same counsel (at any one time) at all future steps in the consolidated proceeding, Queensland Nickel has leave to be represented by two solicitors on the record being the solicitors presently on the record for the General Purpose Liquidators and the Special Purpose Liquidators.

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:	Parbery & Anor v QNI Metals Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QSC 83
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 plaintiff) 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 plaintiff) 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)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 6593 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – Civil
DELIVERED ON:	26 April 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 April 2018
JUDGE:	Bond J
ORDER:	The orders of the Court are: 1. In this order the terms used have the meanings identified in the glossary which is schedule 1 to the order made in the consolidated proceeding on 19 April 2018. 2. Subject to any further order of the Court, and on the condition that the QN parties are to be represented by the same counsel (at any one time) at all future steps in the consolidated proceeding, Queensland Nickel has leave to be represented by two solicitors on the record being the solicitors presently on the record for the General Purpose Liquidators and the Special Purpose Liquidators.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION – LEGAL REPRESENTATION – GENERALLY – where there are two sets of liquidators appointed to a company being wound up in insolvency – where each set of liquidators has a separate solicitors’ firm on the record – whether the company should have leave to be represented by two solicitors on the record, being the two solicitors on the record for each set of liquidators Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Brendas [2010] FCAFC 125, applied Cart Provider Pty Ltd v Park [2016] QSC…