Rattenbury v Elstak - [2022] QDC 99

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rattenbury and Anor v Elstak and Ors [2022] QDC 99

PARTIES:

NIGEL RATTENBURY

(first plaintiff)

MELINDA RATTENBURY
(second plaintiff)

v

JESSE OSCAR MARTIN ELSTAK

(first defendant)

JANE ELSTAK

(second defendant)

AQUAHOLICS ONLINE PTY LTD

(third defendant)

J ELSTAK PTY LTD

(fourth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D138/2018

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

13 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2022

JUDGE:

Cash QC DCJ

ORDERS:

The first plaintiff is to bring in a draft order consistent with these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DISCLOSURE – where the plaintiffs seek further disclosure of financial records – whether the plaintiffs satisfy the precondition of subrule 4(b)(i) of rule 223 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the defendants submitted that the documents are not directly relevant to an issue in dispute

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – where an application was brought for strikeout of some paragraphs of the plaintiff’s statement of claim – whether order should be made – whether the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – where the first plaintiff seeks leave to file a third amended claim and fourth amended statement of claim – where the defendants consent to leave being granted to the plaintiffs to discontinue

CASES:

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, 129-130
Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurants and Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276
Robson v REB Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102
St Clair v Timtalla Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2010] QSC 480, [11], [14]

TradeCoast Land Pty Ltd v TradeCoast Central Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] QSC 25

COUNSEL:

R W Tooth for the plaintiffs
M D White for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Simpson Quinn for the plaintiffs
Stonegate Legal for the defendants

On 26 September 2018 Nigel Rattenbury (the first plaintiff) and Melinda Rattenbury (the second plaintiff) filed a claim against Jesse Elstak (the first defendant), Jane Elstak (the second defendant) and Aquaholics Online Pty Ltd (the third defendant).[1] The claim, and the associated first statement of claim,[2] alleged there had been a partnership agreement involving the first and second plaintiffs and the first and second defendants. The purpose of the agreement was to conduct a business selling aquariums and associated equipment using online services such as eBay. In the original claim the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the partnership be terminated and the taking of accounts. There was also a claim for a declaration about the ownership of some fish tanks and equipment which the plaintiffs suspected had been transferred by the first defendant to the third defendant.[3]
[1]Court document 1.
[2]Court document 2.
[3]There was also an alternative quantum meruit claim, but that is not presently relevant.

A defence was filed on 2 November 2018.[4] Since…

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.

Continue reading Rattenbury v Elstak

Details

AGLC: Rattenbury v Elstak [2022] QDC 99
Case: [2022] QDC 99
Decision Date: 13 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rattenbury v Elstak involved proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) where the plaintiffs sought further disclosure of financial records from the defendants. The primary dispute centred on whether the plaintiffs had satisfied the preconditions for disclosure under subrule 4(b)(i) of rule 223 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The defendants argued that the requested documents were not directly relevant to the issues in dispute. Additionally, an application was made to strike out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim on the grounds that they did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. Furthermore, the first plaintiff sought leave to file a third amended claim and a fourth amended statement of claim, although the defendants consented to the plaintiffs discontinuing their proceedings.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs had fulfilled the necessary preconditions for obtaining further disclosure of financial records and whether the application to strike out specific paragraphs of the statement of claim should be successful. The court also needed to determine whether leave should be granted for the plaintiffs to file additional amended claims and statements of claim, particularly in light of the defendants' consent to discontinuance.

In addressing these issues, the court examined the preconditions for disclosure and found that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the requirement that the documents sought be directly relevant to an issue in dispute. Consequently, the court denied the application for further disclosure. Regarding the application to strike out certain paragraphs, the court concluded that the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action in those respects, and thus granted the application to strike out. Finally, considering the plaintiffs' request to amend their claims, the court accepted the defendants' consent to discontinuance, allowing the plaintiffs to discontinue their proceedings.

The final orders of the court were that the first plaintiff was to prepare a draft order consistent with the reasons provided, and that the defendants' application to strike out specific paragraphs of the statement of claim was successful. The plaintiffs were also permitted to discontinue their proceedings in accordance with the defendants' consent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The first plaintiff is to bring in a draft order consistent with these reasons.

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:	Rattenbury and Anor v Elstak and Ors [2022] QDC 99
PARTIES:	NIGEL RATTENBURY (first plaintiff)
MELINDA RATTENBURY (second plaintiff)
v
JESSE OSCAR MARTIN ELSTAK (first defendant)
JANE ELSTAK (second defendant)
AQUAHOLICS ONLINE PTY LTD (third defendant)
J ELSTAK PTY LTD (fourth defendant)
FILE NO/S:	D138/2018
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	13 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	25 February 2022
JUDGE:	Cash QC DCJ
ORDERS:	The first plaintiff is to bring in a draft order consistent with these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DISCLOSURE – where the plaintiffs seek further disclosure of financial records – whether the plaintiffs satisfy the precondition of subrule 4(b)(i) of rule 223 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the defendants submitted that the documents are not directly relevant to an issue in dispute PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – where an application was brought for strikeout of some paragraphs of the plaintiff’s statement of claim – whether order should be made – whether the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – where the first plaintiff seeks leave to file a third amended claim and fourth amended statement of claim – where the defendants consent to leave being granted to the plaintiffs to discontinue
CASES:	General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, 129-130 Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurants and Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276 Robson v REB Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102 St Clair v Timtalla Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2010] QSC 480, [11], [14] TradeCoast Land Pty Ltd v TradeCoast Central Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] QSC 25
COUNSEL:	R W Tooth for the plaintiffs M D White for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Simpson Quinn for the plaintiffs Stonegate Legal for the defendants