SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd & Ors [2021] QSC 35
PARTIES:
KENT MATTHEW QUINLAN
(Plaintiff)
v
ERM POWER LIMITED ACN 122 259 23
(First Defendant)
PHILIP MATTHEW ST BAKER
(Third Defendant)
TREVOR CHARLES ST BAKER
(Fourth Defendant)
ANTHONY GEORGE BELLAS
(Fifth Defendant)
ANTONINO MARIO IANNELLO
(Sixth Defendant)
MARTIN ROGER GREENBERG
(Seventh Defendant)
JAMES BRETT LOCHRAN HEADING
(Eighth Defendant)
JONATHAN HUGH STRETCH
(Ninth Defendant)
JULIEANNE MARGARET ALROE
(Tenth Defendant)
ALBERT GOLLER
(Eleventh Defendant)
GEORGANNE MARIE HODGES
(Twelfth Defendant)
PHILIP ANDREW DAVIS(Thirteenth Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BS No 6601 of 2020
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
26 February 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8 February 2021
JUDGE:
Bowskill J
ORDERS:
I direct the parties to provide draft minutes of order, reflecting the reasons given below for striking out paragraphs of the further amended statement of claim, with a grant of leave to re-plead where appropriate.
I will hear from the parties as to the costs of the applications
CATCHWORDS:
COMMUNICATIONS LAW – WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION –– where the plaintiff claims that he made whistleblower disclosures to directors and officers of the first defendant and another company which qualify for protection under Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where one of the requirements to qualify for protection, under s 1317AA of the Corporations Act 2001, is that the discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information indicates or concerns certain things – where the plaintiff seeks to establish that he had reasonable grounds to suspect certain things, in part, by reference to what he alleges was, objectively, the actual purport or effect of particular transactions, whether he had knowledge of those things or not – where the first defendant contends that the question of reasonableness is to be determined by reference only to what the plaintiff knew or believed at the time of the disclosures – consideration of the proper construction of the phrase “has reasonable grounds to suspect” in s 1317AA of the Corporations Act 2001.
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – EMBARRASSING, TENDENCY TO CAUSE PREJUDICE, SCANDALOUS, UNNECESSARY ETC OR CAUSING DELAY IN PROCEEDINGS – applications to strike out paragraphs of the further amended statement of claim under r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 on the basis that they have a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding including on the basis of irrelevance having regard to the proper construction of s 1317AA of the Corporations Act 2001, imprecision and a failure to properly comply with the requirement to specifically plead motive, intention or other condition of mind as required by r 150(1)(k) and (2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1317AA
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 149, 150(1)(i), 150(1)(k), 150(2), 155, 157(c), 171
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths…
Continue reading Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd [2021] QSC 35
- Case
- [2021] QSC 35
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court revolve around the proper construction of the phrase "has reasonable grounds to suspect" in section 1317AA of the Corporations Act 2001. The court must determine whether the suspicion must be based on the discloser's actual knowledge or belief, or if it can also be based on the objective purport or effect of the transactions. Additionally, the court examined whether certain paragraphs of Quinlan's further amended statement of claim should be struck out under rule 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The application to strike out included claims that the paragraphs were irrelevant, imprecise, and failed to properly plead motive, intention, or other condition of mind as required by rule 150(1)(k) and (2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).
The court found that the phrase "has reasonable grounds to suspect" should be interpreted to require a suspicion based on the discloser's actual knowledge or belief. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to protect whistleblowers who act in good faith. The court held that Quinlan's reliance on the objective purport or effect of transactions, independent of his knowledge, was not sufficient to meet the requirement of section 1317AA. Regarding the application to strike out, the court determined that certain paragraphs of Quinlan's further amended statement of claim were irrelevant, imprecise, and failed to properly plead the necessary conditions of mind. Consequently, the court directed the parties to provide draft minutes of order, reflecting the reasons for striking out the paragraphs, with a grant of leave to re-plead where appropriate. The court will also hear from the parties regarding the costs of the applications.
Orders
Orders of the court
I direct the parties to provide draft minutes of order, reflecting the reasons given below for striking out paragraphs of the further amended statement of claim, with a grant of leave to re-plead where appropriate.
I will hear from the parties as to the costs of the applications
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.