SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Seeto Kui (Holdings) Ltd v Chow [2015] QSC 193
PARTIES:
SEETO KUI (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
(applicant)
v
HSING LING SHAO CHOW(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
4027 of 2012
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
9 July 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5, 12 March 2015
JUDGE:
Martin J
ORDER:
Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – TIME – DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING – where the applicant seeks an order that the respondent pay its costs – where the respondent argues that no step in the proceeding has been taken in over two years – whether events that occurred constitute a ‘step’ in the proceeding under r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – whether the application had previously been brought to an end by the respondent.
PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant in the alternative sought leave to be granted – whether the applicant had reasonable prospects of success – whether the applicant was the ‘judgment creditor’ under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) for all the matters.
Companies Act 1997 (PNG), s 238
Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), s 6(6)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1883 (UK), O XXVI., r 1
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 389
Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Standfield & Smith (A Firm) [2012] QCA 272; [2013] 2 Qd R 202
Citicorp Australia Limited v Metropolitan Public Abattoir Board [1992] 1 Qd R 592
Coad v Dimmick [2013] TASSC 48
Ellis v Dariush-Far [2007] QCA 398
Howard v Pickford Tool Co Limited [1951] 1 KB 417
COUNSEL:
B Le Plastrier for the applicant
B Lambert (solicitor) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Turner Freeman Lawyers for the applicant
Birch & Co for the respondent
The applicant (“Seeto Kui”) seeks an order that the respondent (“Ms Chow”) pay its costs relating to Seeto Kui’s application to register four judgments, obtained in Papua New Guinea, under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) (“the Act”).
Ms Chow opposes the application on two bases:
(a) No step in the proceeding had been taken for over two years before making this application. Leave was not obtained and should not be granted.
(b) Seeto Kui was not entitled to obtain registration with respect to three of the four judgments for which registration was sought and had lost the right to register the fourth.
Background
On 17 July 2009, four separate default judgments were entered against Ms Chow in the National Court of Justice, Papua New Guinea. The judgment creditors in those matters were:
Proceeding Judgment Creditor Judgment Debt WS350 of 2009 Mainland Plumbing Supplies (NG) Limited K158, 498.03 plus interest WS360 of 2009 Ardrossan Investments Limited trading as Bowmans - Lae
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Seeto Kui (Holdings) Ltd v Chow 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
- [2015] QSC 193
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the events in question constituted a step in the proceeding under the specified rule. It also considered whether the application had been effectively terminated by the respondent's actions. The court assessed the application for costs and the applicant's alternative request for leave, evaluating if the applicant had reasonable prospects of success and if it was the 'judgment creditor' under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) for all matters.
The court found that the events did not constitute a step in the proceeding as defined by the rule. It also determined that the application had not been brought to an end by the respondent's actions. The court concluded that the applicant did not have reasonable prospects of success and was not the 'judgment creditor' for all matters. Consequently, the application for costs was dismissed, and the alternative request for leave was also denied.
ORDERS:
Application dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed.
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.