SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Recycling Developments Pty Ltd v Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 168
PARTIES:
RECYCLING DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 132 325 314(first plaintiff)
TEB ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 142 685 372 ATF PERROTT FAMILY TRUST ABN 95 197 523 153
(second plaintiff)
PERROTT’S CARTAGE PTY LTD
ACN 010 059 882
(third plaintiff)v
BESPOKE RECYCLING INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
ACN 634 377 030(first defendant)
ROCKY POINT HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 645 224 755 ATF ROCKY POINT TRUST ABN 96 370 426 600(second defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BS No 4963 of 2022
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at BrisbaneDELIVERED ON:
18 July 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
10 July 2025
JUDGE:
Kelly J
ORDERS:
1. Any defence filed by the defendants to the extent that it pleads to paragraphs 49 to 57 and 59 to 61 of the statement of claim must at a minimum state with respect to each allegation of fact whether the allegation is admitted, not admitted or denied but is not otherwise required to comply with rr 149(1)(b), 149(1)(c), 150, 157, 165 and 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).
2. As part of their disclosure obligations in the proceeding, the defendants are directed to identify by way of a list of documents any document which is claimed to be the subject of any claim referable to a privilege asserted by Mr Murray and the basis for the claim of privilege in relation to each particular document.
3. Each parties’ costs of the application filed 3 July 2025 are costs in the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – GENERALLY – where the defendants have applied for an order that pleading rules under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) be dispensed with in relation to paragraphs of the statement of claim – where the application seeks to excuse the defendants from having to plead responsively to the identified paragraphs of the statement of claim in accordance with the pleading rules – where the identified paragraphs of the statement of claim are said to allege conduct by the defendants’ sole director involving serious criminal offending – where the defendants contend that to require them to plead to the identified paragraphs would compel the sole director to provide instructions in abrogation of his privilege against self-incrimination – where privilege against self-incrimination is a substantive legal right that is not overridden by a requirement to plead in a civil proceeding – where there must be a degree of risk which cannot be dismissed as tenuous or illusory or so improbable as to be virtually without substance – whether the defendants’ application to dispense with pleading rules should be allowed
Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), s 480
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 149(1)(b), r 149(1)(c), r 150, r 157, r 165 and r 166
Anderson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2013] 2 Qd R 401, followed
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Recycling Developments Pty Ltd v Bespoke Recycling Industrie... 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] QSC 168
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the allegations and the potential for criminal prosecution against Mr Murray. It was noted that the plaintiffs did not seek a declaration of a criminal offence, and there was no evidence of any existing or threatened prosecution. The court also examined the pleading rules, particularly those requiring specific statements about allegations and the circumstances under which non-admissions and denials may be made. The court held that the defendants' application to dispense with pleading rules was based on the argument that responsive pleading would compel Mr Murray to provide information that could incriminate him, which was not permissible. The court found that the defendants had not established a real and appreciable risk of criminal prosecution that would warrant dispensing with the pleading rules.
The court ruled that any defence filed by the defendants must state whether each allegation of fact is admitted, not admitted, or denied, without requiring compliance with certain rules of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The defendants were also directed to identify any documents claimed to be subject to a privilege asserted by Mr Murray and the basis for the claim of privilege. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Any defence filed by the defendants to the extent that it pleads to paragraphs 49 to 57 and 59 to 61 of the statement of claim must at a minimum state with respect to each allegation of fact whether the allegation is admitted, not admitted or denied but is not otherwise required to comply with rr 149(1)(b), 149(1)(c), 150, 157, 165 and 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).
2. As part of their disclosure obligations in the proceeding, the defendants are directed to identify by way of a list of documents any document which is claimed to be the subject of any claim referable to a privilege asserted by Mr Murray and the basis for the claim of privilege in relation to each particular document.
3. Each parties’ costs of the application filed 3 July 2025 are costs in the proceeding.
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
The application was argued on the accepted basis that there was no evidence of any existing or threatened prosecution of Mr Murray. There was no evidence that the Department had expressed any interest in the allegations made in this proceeding. The plaintiffs emphasised that the declaratory relief sought was not of “a criminal offence”.[25] The plaintiffs placed particular reliance upon the statement of Edelman J in QC Resource Investments and submitted that the requisite “something more” had not been established by the defendant such that the prospect of any criminal prosecution of Mr Murray was no more than theoretical and was not real and appreciable in the sense discussed by the authorities. The plaintiffs’ submission was ultimately expressed in these terms: “The main obstacle to the [d]efendants’ application is that they have not established that responsive pleading would lead to a real and appreciable risk of a criminal prosecution or a bona fide apprehension based on reasonable grounds of such a consequence”. [25]T1-12.Consideration of the issues On the basis of the evidence and my review of the statement of claim, I find that Mr Murray is the sole director of the defendants and the steps required of him as the sole director of the defendants in filing a defence cannot be fairly or reasonably assigned to another individual who would not have the requisite knowledge to provide full and proper instructions. Paragraphs 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60 and 61 contain or rely upon direct allegations that Mr Murray falsified a document and caused it to be lodged with the Department to gain a benefit. Paragraphs 52, 57, 59(a), 60(a) and 60(b) allege that Mr Murray acted dishonestly, intentionally falsified a document, and caused the document to be lodged to gain a benefit. I find that these are very serious allegations made in a civil proceeding in which the plaintiffs plainly intend to attempt to prove that Mr Murray engaged in conduct which involved him committing, or which would go some significant way towards establishing that he committed, criminal acts. Notably, the statement of claim alleges in terms that Bespoke, by Mr Murray, contravened s 480 of the EP Act (para 59(a)), that he intentionally falsified a document (para 60(a)) and engaged in fraudulent conduct (para 61(a)). Whilst it may be correct to say that no declaration is sought in relation to a breach of s 480, the breach of s 480 is a matter directly alleged within the paragraphs of the statement of claim. In the present case, the particularly relevant pleading rules are rr 149(1)(c) and 150(4)(c) UCPR which require a pleading to state specifically any matter that if not stated specifically may take another party by surprise and rr 165(1), 166(3), 166(4) and 166(6) which deal with the circumstances in which non-admissions and denials may be made and, in the case of non-admissions, maintained. Relevantly, a non-admission may only be made where a party has made reasonable inquiries to find out whether the allegation is true or untrue and remains uncertain as to its truth or falsity. A denial or non-admission must be accompanied by a direct explanation of the party’s belief that the allegation is untrue or cannot be admitted. A party making a non-admission becomes obliged to make any further inquiries that may become reasonable. The limitations imposed by rr 165 and 166 mean that a defence filed in accordance with the pleading rules must accord with the defendants’ actual state of mind.[26] A defence according to these rules should reveal the defendants’ state of mind as to every allegation.[27] In this case, the defendants’ acts and state of mind are alleged to be the acts and state of mind of Mr Murray. Further, each of those rules may require matters to be pleaded which could well constitute information which, according to the privileges against self-incrimination and penalty, Mr Murray cannot be compelled to provide. [26]Anderson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2013] 2 Qd R 401 at 410 [27].[27]Ibid.