Rushbrook v Chalmers

[2015] QSC 145

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rushbrook v Chalmers & ors [2015] QSC 145

PARTIES:

SUELLEN BASETT RUSHBROOK

(Plaintiff)

v

LUKE BENJAMIN CHALMERS

(First Defendant)
LYNETTE LINDSEY ANNE CHALMERS
(Second Defendant)

LUKE LYN PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ACN 154 674 736) AS TRUSTEE OF THE CHALMERS FAMILY TRUST
(Third Defendant)

CORNERSTONE PROPERTY & DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD (ACN 150 870 867)

(Fourth Defendant)

THE BASE AT CHINCHILLA PTY LTD (ACN 154 785 654)

(Fifth Defendant)

THE BASE (AUS) PTY LTD (ACN 157 781 318)

(Sixth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Brisbane No 5424 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2015

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

1.    Leave to discontinue the application filed 30 April 2015.

2.    No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE –
QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER THE
UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND
PREDECESSORS – DISCONTINUANCE – where the

Plaintiff made an application for leave to discontinue proceedings against the Defendant – where leave to discontinue was not opposed by the Second and Third Defendants – whether leave to discontinue proceedings should be granted

PROCEDURE – COSTS – RECOVERY OF COSTS -

where the Plaintiff sought an order that the Second Defendant and the Second Defendant’s solicitor on the record pay costs on an indemnity basis – where the Second and Third Defendant sought an order that the Plaintiff pay costs on a standard basis – factors in the exercise of the court’s discretion to award costs – what order as to costs should be made

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 304(2), 307(1), 307(2), 681(1)

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72

COUNSEL:

L Coyte (non-legal representative) for the Plaintiff
No appearances for the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants
B L Sandford (sol) for the Second and Third Defendants

SOLICITORS:

Leonard Coyte (non-legal representative) for the Plaintiff

Lillas & Loel Lawyers for the Second and Third Defendants

Parties

1. The Plaintiff is a retired real estate agent and finance broker.

2. The First and Second Defendants are a husband and wife. The First Defendant was declared bankrupt on 15 August 2014.

3. The Third Defendant is a company which acts as trustee of the First and Second Defendants’ family trust. The First and Second Defendants were the sole directors and shareholders of the Third Defendant, until the date the First Defendant was declared bankrupt.  Since that date, the Second Defendant has been the sole director of the Third Defendant.

4. The Fourth Defendant is a company which has ceased trading and has no substantial assets.

5. The Fifth Defendant was a company that was de-registered on 11 May 2014.

6. The Sixth Defendant was a company that was de-registered on 8 September 2014.

7. As a consequence of the financial status of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants, the only parties active in these proceedings were the Plaintiff and the Second and Third Defendants.

8. The proceedings relate to a property at Lot…