Re Quality Blended Liquor Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2014] QSC 307

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Quality Blended Liquor Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] QSC 307

PARTIES:

In the matter of QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739

BS2133/14

INTERNATIONAL NETWORK CONSULTANTS PTY LTD ACN 071 377 190
(applicant)
v
WARREN ERIC TSCHANNEN IN HIS CAPACITY AS CONTROLLER OF QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739, POWER BEER AND LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 164 195 108, POWER BEER AND LIQUOR OPEARTIONS PTY LTD ACN 166 999 239, ROMA SECURITIES PTY LTD ACN 137 882 976 AND TCHG SECURE FREIGHT PTY LTD
(first respondent)
and
QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739, POWER BEER AND LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 164 195 108, POWER BEER AND LIQUOR OPERATIONS PTY LTD ACN 166 999 239, ROMA SECURITIES PTY LTD ACN 137 882 976 AND TCHG SECURE FREIGHT PTY LTD
(second respondent)
and
TOYCO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 055 774 439
(third respondent)

BS3073/14

INTERNATIONAL NETWORK CONSULTANTS PTY LTD ACN 071 377 190
(applicant)
v
QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739
(respondent)

BS3213/14

TOYCO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 055 774 439
(applicant)
v
QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS2133/2014, BS3073/2014 and BS3213/2014

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Applications

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12, 13, 14, and 15 May 2014, 24 July and 8 October 2014; written submissions on costs received up to and including 24 October 2014

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson J

ORDERS:

2133/14 & 3073/14

Order that:

1. the first and third respondents pay 60% of the applicant’s assessed costs in proceedings 2133/14 and 3073/14 (including reserved costs);

2. the applicant pay the second respondent’s assessed costs of and incidental to the hearing on 24 July 2014.

3213/2014

No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – CONDUCT OF PARTIES – OTHER CONDUCT – where the third respondent’s solicitors failed to register security instruments in time – where the third respondent brought an application during the substantive hearing for an extension of time to register those instruments under s 588FM of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where the applicant opposed the extension – where the extension was granted – where the third respondent seeks its costs – where the applicant contends that no order as to costs should be made, because the applicant only opposed the application on a legal basis and did not actively contest its factual basis, and because the applicant alleges that it should not have to bear the costs of an application that was necessary due to the oversight or error of the third respondent’s solicitors – whether an order should be made as to costs

PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – OTHER CASES – FAILURE IN PORTION OF A CASE – where the applicant was successful in obtaining an order that the first respondent’s conduct as controller of the applicant’s companies should be subject to an inquiry…

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 Quality Blended Liquor Pty Ltd (No 2) 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] QSC 307
Decision Date: 18 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves the Quality Blended Liquor Pty Ltd, who brought proceedings against various respondents. The disputes involve issues around the conduct of the respondents' solicitors, their handling of security instruments, and the allocation of costs between the parties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court had to decide whether the third respondent's solicitors should be penalised for failing to register security instruments on time, and if so, whether the applicant should bear the costs of the extension application. The court also had to determine how costs should be apportioned between the parties, given that the applicant achieved partial success in the proceedings. Lastly, the court had to decide if the applicant should pay the costs of a hearing requested by the second respondent to address an unexpected issue raised by the applicant.

The court found that the third respondent's solicitors should not be penalised for their oversight, but the applicant's opposition to the extension application was legally sound. The court exercised its discretion under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules to apportion costs based on the parties' levels of success. The court ordered that the first and third respondents pay 60% of the applicant's costs, while the applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of and incidental to the hearing held on 24 July 2014.

The court made the following orders: (1) the first and third respondents to pay 60% of the applicant's assessed costs in proceedings 2133/14 and 3073/14 (including reserved costs); (2) the applicant to pay the second respondent's assessed costs of and incidental to the hearing on 24 July 2014; and (3) no order as to costs in proceeding 3213/2014.

Orders

Orders of the court

2133/14 & 3073/14

Order that:

1. the first and third respondents pay 60% of the applicant’s assessed costs in proceedings 2133/14 and 3073/14 (including reserved costs);

2. the applicant pay the second respondent’s assessed costs of and incidental to the hearing on 24 July 2014.

3213/2014

No order as to costs.

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:	Re Quality Blended Liquor Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] QSC 307
PARTIES:	In the matter of QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739 BS2133/14 INTERNATIONAL NETWORK CONSULTANTS PTY LTD ACN 071 377 190 (applicant) v WARREN ERIC TSCHANNEN IN HIS CAPACITY AS CONTROLLER OF QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739, POWER BEER AND LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 164 195 108, POWER BEER AND LIQUOR OPEARTIONS PTY LTD ACN 166 999 239, ROMA SECURITIES PTY LTD ACN 137 882 976 AND TCHG SECURE FREIGHT PTY LTD (first respondent) and QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739, POWER BEER AND LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 164 195 108, POWER BEER AND LIQUOR OPERATIONS PTY LTD ACN 166 999 239, ROMA SECURITIES PTY LTD ACN 137 882 976 AND TCHG SECURE FREIGHT PTY LTD (second respondent) and TOYCO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 055 774 439 (third respondent) BS3073/14 INTERNATIONAL NETWORK CONSULTANTS PTY LTD ACN 071 377 190 (applicant) v QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739 (respondent) BS3213/14 TOYCO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 055 774 439 (applicant) v QUALITY BLENDED LIQUOR PTY LTD ACN 129 020 739 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS2133/2014, BS3073/2014 and BS3213/2014
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Applications
DELIVERED ON:	18 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12, 13, 14, and 15 May 2014, 24 July and 8 October 2014; written submissions on costs received up to and including 24 October 2014
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson J
ORDERS:	2133/14 & 3073/14 Order that: 1. the first and third respondents pay 60% of the applicant’s assessed costs in proceedings 2133/14 and 3073/14 (including reserved costs); 2. the applicant pay the second respondent’s assessed costs of and incidental to the hearing on 24 July 2014. 3213/2014 No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – CONDUCT OF PARTIES – OTHER CONDUCT – where the third respondent’s solicitors failed to register security instruments in time – where the third respondent brought an application during the substantive hearing for an extension of time to register those instruments under s 588FM of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where the applicant opposed the extension – where the extension was granted – where the third respondent seeks its costs – where the applicant contends that no order as to costs should be made, because the applicant only opposed the application on a legal basis and did not actively contest its factual basis, and because the applicant alleges that it should not have to bear the costs of an application that was necessary due to the oversight or error of the third respondent’s solicitors – whether an order should be made as to costs PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – OTHER CASES – FAILURE IN PORTION OF A CASE – where the applicant was successful in obtaining an order that the first respondent’s conduct as controller of the applicant’s companies should be subject to an inquiry…