Sierocki v Klerck

[2014] QSC 9

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sierocki and Anor v Klerck and Ors [2014] QSC 9

PARTIES:

JARROD SIEROCKI

(First Plaintiff)

and

INSOLVENCY GUARDIAN PTY LTD ACN 149 298 313

(Second Plaintiff)

v

PAUL GRANT KLERCK

(First Defendant)

and

INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 068 003 805

(Second Defendant)

and

SK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 155 041 491

(Third Defendant)

and

BRENT THOMPSON

(Fourth Defendant)

and

INFOLINK IT PTY LTD ACN 128 081 489

(Fifth Defendant)

and

CHRISTINE WAKE

(Sixth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 638 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

11 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 February 2014

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

1.   Pursuant to r 374 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, the plaintiffs have judgment against the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants conditional upon the assessment of damages by the Court under Chapter 13 Part 8 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

2.   The application against the sixth defendant is dismissed. 

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – COURTS – RULES OF COURT - where the defendants are in default due to a failure to comply with previous court orders – where the defendants must show cause why judgment should not issue against them – where there was a lack of credible explanation for the failure to comply on the part of five of the defendants – where the defences pleaded for five of the defendants were not cogent or persuasive - where no realistic plan for the future conduct of the proceedings was advanced on the part of five of the defendants

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), s 374

Field v Luxor Products Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 218
Johnson v Public Trustee of Queensland as Executor of the will of Brady (deceased) [2010] QCA 260

COUNSEL:

A Nelson for the plaintiffs / applicants

D Stevenson (solicitor) for the first, second, third, fifth and sixth respondents

Brent Thompson (fourth defendant / respondent) in person

SOLICITORS:

Adams Ross Lawyers for the plaintiffs/ applicants

Irish Bentley Lawyers for the first, second, third, fifth and sixth defendants / respondents

Brent Thompson (fourth defendant / respondent) in person

1. The plaintiffs have brought an application pursuant to r 374 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) requiring the defendants to show cause why judgment should not issue against them. That rule applies if a party does not comply with an order to take a step in a proceeding. The application alleges as the breaches of the orders all defendants’ failure to file and serve amended defences pursuant to an order of Byrne SJA made 5 August 2013, the impeding of an alternative dispute resolution process, contrary to r 322, by the third, fourth and fifth defendants failing to pay their percentage of the mediator’s fees in accordance with Byrne SJA’s orders and the failure of those three defendants to attend and participate in the mediation. Breaches of the implied undertaking in r…