Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd - [2018] QSC 180

[2018] QSC 180

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, 3 AUGUST 2018

JUDGMENT

BOND J: HIS HONOUR: By court document 296, the plaintiffs applied for orders as follows:

The categories of documents, document plan, and document management protocol appearing at pages 20 to 63 of Exhibit LTH-2 to the affidavit of Liam Thomas Hennessy affirmed on 6 July 2018, be the categories of documents, document plan, and document management protocol for the consolidated proceeding.

The application so made was consequent upon orders that I made on 19 April 2018. The orders I made on that date provided the following in relation to disclosure:

Item Date Step or direction Party responsible

Disclosure

5 By 4:00pm on 25 May 2018
The QN parties must provide the defendants with:

a)   a proposed list of categories of documents that they are seeking disclosure of from each of the defendants and by which they propose to disclose documents to the defendants;

b)   a proposed document plan to address the management of documents at all stages in the proceeding; and

c)   a proposed document management protocol which ensures that litigants describe and exchange documents consistently to improve searchability and retrieval and to minimize information management which includes potential technology assisted review (TAR) protocols.
QN Parties

6 By 4:00pm on 22 June 2018
The defendants must:

a)   provide comments on the list of categories of…

Item	Date	Step or direction	Party responsible
Disclosure
5	By 4:00pm on 25 May 2018	The QN parties must provide the defendants with: a) a proposed list of categories of documents that they are seeking disclosure of from each of the defendants and by which they propose to disclose documents to the defendants; b) a proposed document plan to address the management of documents at all stages in the proceeding; and c) a proposed document management protocol which ensures that litigants describe and exchange documents consistently to improve searchability and retrieval and to minimize information management which includes potential technology assisted review (TAR) protocols.	QN Parties
6	By 4:00pm on 22 June 2018	The defendants must: a) provide comments on the list of categories of…

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 180
Decision Date: 3 AUGUST 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd involves multiple plaintiffs, including liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd, and numerous defendants including Clive Frederick Palmer, various companies, and individuals. The plaintiffs sought orders regarding disclosure of documents, a document plan, and a document management protocol as part of the ongoing litigation. The central legal issue before the court was whether the orders proposed by the plaintiffs were appropriate, and if not, what modifications should be made. The court had to consider the submissions made by the defendants, who had initially sought an adjournment to properly address the disclosure application but ultimately chose not to make any submissions or oppose the orders.

The court found the defendants' conduct to be extraordinary, noting that they had obtained an adjournment specifically to address the disclosure application but then chose not to make any submissions or oppose the orders sought by the plaintiffs. The court ruled that it would not entertain evidence from the defendants that was not supported by any submissions. The court determined that the proposed disclosure plan and document management protocol were appropriate and ordered that the parties conduct disclosure in accordance with the plaintiffs' proposals. Additionally, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application.

In summary, the court granted the plaintiffs' application for disclosure orders and found the defendants' failure to make any submissions to be unreasonable. The orders were made in accordance with the plaintiffs' proposals, and the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs.

Orders