Re: Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Anor

[2024] QSC 15

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re: Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Anor [2024] QSC 15

PARTIES:

Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 009 842 068)

(First Applicant)

John Park and Kelly-Anne Trenfield In Their Capacity as Joint and Several Liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 009 842 068)

(Second Applicants)

FILE NO/S:

BS 10294 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 February 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDER:

1.   The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

2.   The Second Applicants are to list the matter for hearing in the Applications list.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – MOTIONS, INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicants propose that an application be decided without an oral hearing – where the application seeks an order determining the remuneration of liquidators and directions concerning recovery of disbursements – whether application is inappropriate for decision without an oral hearing pursuant to r 489 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 489, r 491

COUNSEL:

N J Derrington for the second applicants

SOLICITORS:

HWL Ebsworth for the second applicants

1. The applicants seek orders fixing their remuneration as liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd. The amount sought is in the order of $1,3000,000.

2. The applicants propose that the application be decided without an oral hearing – see r 489, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. In that circumstance, the court must decide the application without an oral hearing unless:

   (a)under r 491, the court considers it inappropriate to do so;

   (b)under r 494, the respondent requires an oral hearing;

   (c)under r 495, the applicant abandons the request for a decision without an oral hearing; or

   (d)the Chief Justice or Chief Judge suspends the operation of the rule by direction.

3. Rule 491 provides:

   “(1)The court may decide at any time that an application is inappropriate for decision without an oral hearing.

   (2)If the court decides this before the date set for deciding the application, the court—

   (a)must immediately notify the parties to the application of the decision by telephone or in some other way; and

   (b)may set a date for hearing.”

4. The reasons for an application being inappropriate for decision without an oral hearing cannot be comprehensively catalogued. Factors such as the nature of the application, the omission to serve all necessary parties, the state of the litigation, and the time which has elapsed since the last step was taken are examples of matters which can militate against the use of this procedure.

5. The purpose of the “on the papers” procedure is to allow matters which can be considered without any further information or argument to be decided without incurring the cost of an oral hearing. It will, generally, be inappropriate to use this procedure where the application is factually or legally complex. Complexity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and lawyers who have a deep understanding of a matter can sometimes not appreciate that their understanding of the case will not easily be conveyed without the benefit of an oral hearing.

6. The submissions in support of the application extend to 73 paragraphs and the material in support is some hundreds of pages. The applicants say that all relevant parties have been served and that no objections have been raised. But this is not a cut and dried case. Because I have formed the view that the application is inappropriate for decision without an oral hearing, I will not go into the detail. 

7. Contrary to the annotation in one of the published services on the UCPR, I do not think that in these circumstances the application ought to be dismissed. Rather, the appropriate order is that the application be adjourned to a date to be fixed with a direction that the applicants list the matter in the ordinary way for hearing in the Applications list.

   
   

   Orders

8. The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

9. The applicants are to list the matter for hearing in the Applications list.