Scarborough Hospitality 2000 Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Cabarita Pacific Holdings Pty Ltd

[2006] QSC 383

[2006] QSC 383

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ROBIN A/J

No 8307 of 2006

SCARBOROUGH HOSPITALITY 2000 PTY LTD
(IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 106 478 880

and

JOHN WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM AND
JOHN RICHARD PARK

First Plaintiff

Second Plaintiff

and

CABARITA PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 104 025 658

and

JENELLE SARAH KURVINK

and

FREDERICK JOHN BRILMAN

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/11/2006

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:  On the 30th of October 2006 the Court indicated an intention to make an order in terms of a draft document, being a manuscript supplied by counsel which was initialled.  Since then there has been received by the Court a letter from Russell and Company, Solicitors dated 1st November 2006 which I will mark Exhibit 1.

ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 1"

HIS HONOUR:  That letter contends that the draft supplied to the Court misapprehended the impact of an order made by Muir J in BS354/2006 on the 5th of June 2006.  The letter indicated a wish to "submit that the draft order reflects a misunderstanding (by all counsel) of the operation of the order of Muir J". 

The Court was asked not to send the problematic draft to the Registry for settling.  It was supplied to the Court late in the day, sometime after 5.30 p.m. and it might well have been the case that it was intended to be replaced by a fair copy in any event.

ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 2"

HIS HONOUR:  Exhibit 2 is the next letter from Russell and Company, of the 8th of November 2006.  It incorporates a new form of order acceptable not only to Russell and Company who propounded it, but also to Q5 Law, the solicitors on the other side, as established by their letter of 7 November 2006 which forms part of Exhibit 2.

I think the Court ought to fall in with the parties' common view about the appropriate order to give effect to the conclusions which the Court had reached about the underlying issues after the arguments for the parties.  I will initial the typewritten form of "order" included in Exhibit 2 and that initialled document will constitute the order of the Court rather than the handwritten manuscript which had previously been initialled.

-----