Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd - [2018] QSC 178

[2018] QSC 178

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: On 19 April 2018, I made an order and case management directions in relation to the present proceeding. Amongst other things, I made directions 9, 10 and 12 as recorded in the schedule 2 to the order, the case management timetable. Those directions were as follows:

Item

Date

Step or direction

Party responsible

…

…

…

...

9

By 4:00pm on 13 July 2018

The parties are to meet with each other to discuss-

a) the directions which should be made in order to order to permit the Court to determine the issues which arise on such applications as are filed in compliance with directions [4] and [8] above;

b) whether there are any issues of fact or law that are appropriate for separate and preliminary determination; and

c) whether the proceeding should be set down for trial for a period commencing in mid-February 2019 (or some subsequent fixed trial date) and, if so, for how long.

All parties

10

By 4:00pm on 20 July 2018

The parties are to submit a joint report to the Court identifying the parties’ respective positions about the matters referred to in the previous direction.

All parties

…

…

…

…

12

On a date to be fixed in the week commencing 23 July 2018

The consolidated…

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 178
Decision Date: 3 AUGUST 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parbery v QNI Metals Pty Ltd is a case before the Supreme Court of Queensland in which liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd are seeking to recover moneys from various defendants, including Clive Palmer, QNI Metals Pty Ltd, and several other entities and individuals. The defendants have lodged appeals and applications for the judge to recuse himself from the case, arguing that the judge's previous findings in a related matter may have caused him to be biased. In response, the plaintiffs have applied for a stay of the proceedings until the recusal applications and appeals are determined. The court was required to decide whether to grant the stay application and, if not, to make orders regarding document handling protocol, disclosure, trial dates, and trial directions. The court rejected the stay application, finding that there was no good arguable case for the judge to recuse himself and that the stay application was misconceived as it did not relate to the matters that the judge was required to decide. The court found that the stay application was an attempt to slow down the proceedings and that the matters in the case needed to be resolved as speedily as appropriate. The court also found that the appeal grounds were not well-founded and that there was no likely waste of time and resources if the stay application was refused. The court made orders regarding document handling protocol, disclosure, trial dates, and trial directions, and dismissed the stay applications with costs.

In summary, the court rejected the defendants' applications for a stay of the proceedings and made orders regarding document handling protocol, disclosure, trial dates, and trial directions. The court found that there was no good arguable case for the judge to recuse himself and that the stay application was misconceived. The court also found that the appeal grounds were not well-founded and that there was no likely waste of time and resources if the stay application was refused. The court dismissed the stay applications with costs.

Orders