Rare Nominees Pty Ltd v E-Coastal Developments Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 84 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rare Nominees Pty Ltd v E-Coastal Developments Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QDC 238

PARTIES:

RARE NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 094 976 833), AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MACKELLAR FAMILY SUPERANNUATION FUND

(plaintiff)

v

E-COASTAL DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 105 138 056)

(first defendant)

and

CHRISTOPHER JOHN EATON

(second defendant)

and

MODERN CITY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 122 023 803)

(third defendant)

and

BELINDA JANE EATON

(fourth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D4799/15

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

17, 18, 19 July 2017, first written submissions on 24 and 26 July 2017 and second written submissions on 1 and 5 September 2017

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   It is ordered that E-Coastal Developments Pty Ltd is removed as a party to the proceedings.

2.   It is ordered that the plaintiff’s Seventh Amended Statement of Claim, insofar as it makes allegations and seeks claims against the third defendant, is struck out.

3.   Leave is refused to the plaintiff to amend its pleadings to allege any further cause of action against the second defendant.

4.   It is adjudged that the second defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $226,000.55 (inclusive of interest of $100,872.30).

5.   It is adjudged that the fourth defendant have judgment against the plaintiff.

6.   It is ordered that submissions on costs, if any, be filed and served by 4pm on Friday 29 September 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

Whether admitted joint venture relationship generated any fiduciary duties – whether it was pleaded that any fiduciary duty was cast on the sole director of the alleged fiduciary – whether any implied or express trust, or constructive trust, established – whether any equitable charge created – whether any receipt liability or accessorial liability established

LEGISLATION:  

Civil Proceedings Act 2011, s 58
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 601AD(1)
Land Title Act 1994 Part 9

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 69(1)

CASES CITED:                   

Assad v Eliana Construction & Developing Group Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 53
ASIC v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd [No 4] (2007) 160 FCR 35
Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
Caduceus Enterprises International Pty Ltd v Complete Lending Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 159
Caple v Wilson [2016] VSC 704
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Comgroup Supplies Pty Ltd v Products for Industry Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] QCA 88
Cornerstone Property & Development Pty Ltd v Suellen Properties Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] 1 Qd R 75
Davan Developments Pty Ltd v HLB Mann Judd(SE Qld) Pty Ltd [2017] 1 Qd R 254
DPC Estates Pty Ltd v Grey [1974] 1 NSWLR 443
Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd [2017] HCA 12; (2017) 343 ALR 58
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640
Farah Constructions…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rare Nominees Pty Ltd v E-Coastal Developments 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
[2017] QDC 238
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rare Nominees Pty Ltd sought relief against E-Coastal Developments Pty Ltd and others in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff alleged that an admitted joint venture relationship had resulted in the imposition of fiduciary duties, the existence of express or implied trusts, the creation of an equitable charge, and the establishment of receipt or accessorial liability. The defendants denied these claims and sought to have the plaintiff’s pleadings struck out or amended. The court was required to determine whether the admitted joint venture relationship resulted in any fiduciary duties, whether such duties were cast on the sole director of the alleged fiduciary, and whether any trust or equitable charge was established. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any receipt or accessorial liability was incurred.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were based on an admitted joint venture, which did not generate any fiduciary duties between the parties. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff had not pleaded that any fiduciary duty was cast on the sole director of the alleged fiduciary. The plaintiff failed to establish any implied or express trust, constructive trust, or equitable charge. The court also determined that no receipt or accessorial liability was established.

Consequently, the court ordered that E-Coastal Developments Pty Ltd be removed as a party to the proceedings. The court also struck out the plaintiff’s Seventh Amended Statement of Claim against the third defendant and refused leave to amend the pleadings to allege any further cause of action against the second defendant. The second defendant was adjudged to pay the plaintiff $226,000.55, inclusive of interest of $100,872.30. The fourth defendant was granted judgment against the plaintiff. Submissions on costs, if any, were to be filed and served by 4pm on Friday 29 September 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is ordered that E-Coastal Developments Pty Ltd is removed as a party to the proceedings.

2. It is ordered that the plaintiff’s Seventh Amended Statement of Claim, insofar as it makes allegations and seeks claims against the third defendant, is struck out.

3. Leave is refused to the plaintiff to amend its pleadings to allege any further cause of action against the second defendant.

4. It is adjudged that the second defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $226,000.55 (inclusive of interest of $100,872.30).

5. It is adjudged that the fourth defendant have judgment against the plaintiff.

6. It is ordered that submissions on costs, if any, be filed and served by 4pm on Friday 29 September 2017.

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.