Re Annesley Plant Hire Pty Ltd - [2014] VSC 56

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST

No 01633 of 2012

RE ANNESLEY PLANT HIRE PTY LTD (ACN 006 702 601)
BETWEEN
ANNESLEY PLANT HIRE PTY LTD (ACN 006 702 601) and PAUL ANNESLEY	First Plaintiff Second Plaintiff
v
WILLIAM WILSON PETER WILSON WILSANDS PTY LTD (ACN 104 974 772) LINE IN THE SAND PTY LTD (ACN 133 913 587) and P J WILSON PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ACN 149 441 056)	First Defendant Second Defendant Third Defendant Fourth Defendant Fifth Defendant
AND BETWEEN
WILLIAM WILSON PETER WILSON and BARRY MOSHEL	First Plaintiff by counterclaim Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim Third Plaintiff by Counterclaim
v
PAUL ANNESLEY	First defendant by counterclaim
PIONEER ROAD HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 139 147 523)(IN LIQUIDATION)	Second defendant by counterclaim
FLEURIE PTY LTD (ACN 060 643 156)	Third defendant by counterclaim
WAYNE COLLINS	Fourth defendant by counterclaim
REGISTRAR OF TITLES	Fifth defendant by counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 November 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 March 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Annesley Plant Hire Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 56

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application – Whether self-executing order enlivened - Whether allegation of conspiracy properly particularised.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Second plaintiff and First defendant by counterclaim	Mark Koroneos	Koroneos Lawyers
For the Third and Fourth defendants by counterclaim	A Schlicht	Simon Nixon & Associates
For the First, Second and Third Defendants and the First and Second plaintiffs by counterclaim	Mr A Rodbard-Bean	MCP Commercial Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By a summons dated 25 October 2013, the third defendant by counterclaim (Fleurie Pty Ltd) (Fleurie) and the fourth defendant by counterclaim Wayne Collins (Collins) (collectively, the applicants) applied to have the proceedings against them each dismissed.

The applicants contend that the plaintiffs by counterclaim (the Wilsons) failed to comply with a self-executing order I made on 21 June 2013, that unless the Wilsons filed and served a counterclaim against Fleurie and Collins by 28 June 2013 Fleurie and Collins would be removed as parties from the proceeding.

The Wilsons served a counterclaim against Fleurie, but not Collins, by 28 June 2013. The applicants contend that the counterclaim did not disclose a good cause of action against Fleurie or Collins and thus the Wilsons should be treated as having failed to comply with the order, with the result that Fleurie and Collins must be removed as parties from the proceeding.

For the reasons given below, I find that the Wilsons did not file a counterclaim against Collins. In accordance with the order of 21 June 2013, Collins should be removed as a party from the proceeding and I so order.

In my view the Wilsons did serve a counterclaim against Fleurie as required by the order even though, as I find, it did not disclose a good cause of action against Fleurie.

In the circumstances, I refuse the application to remove Fleurie as…

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 Re Annesley Plant Hire 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: [2014] VSC 56
Decision Date: 3 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Annesley Plant Hire Pty Ltd, the applicant, a company, applied for an order that would allow it to conduct investigations into allegations of misconduct by certain individuals. The primary dispute was whether the application was self-executing, and if the allegations of conspiracy were sufficiently detailed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues were whether the order requested by the applicant was self-executing, thereby allowing the company to proceed with its investigations without further judicial intervention, and whether the allegations of conspiracy had been adequately particularised. The court had to determine if the application met the necessary standards for a self-executing order and if the allegations were specific enough to warrant the requested relief.

The court examined the nature of the application and found that it was not self-executing as it required judicial oversight to ensure the investigations were conducted fairly and within the bounds of the law. Furthermore, the court held that the allegations of conspiracy were not sufficiently detailed to meet the standards required for such a serious claim. The court noted that the particulars of the conspiracy allegations were vague and lacked the specificity necessary to justify the requested order. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The court's final orders were that the application be dismissed and that the applicant bear its own costs. The court emphasised the importance of clear and specific allegations in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving serious claims such as conspiracy.

Orders