State of Queensland v Hannan

[2014] QSC 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

State of Queensland v Hannan [2014] QSC 92

PARTIES:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(Applicants)

v

BEN HANNAN and ANOTHER

(Respondents)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 2833 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 April 2014

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDERS:

1.      The following paragraphs of the originating application filed on 25 March 2014 are adjourned to 28 May 2014:

i.       2(a);

ii.      4(a);

iii.     4(b);

iv.     5(a);

v.      5(b);

vi.     6;

vii.    7 in so far as it relates to paragraphs 2(a), 5(a) and 5(b);

viii.    8 in so far as it relates to paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b);

ix.     9;

x.      12;

xi.     13;

xii.    15; and

xiii.   16.

2.      The applicant undertakes, by its Solicitors, to serve Bensa Properties Pty Ltd (A.C.N 138 409 382) as Trustee and the Ben Hannan Family Trust with the originating application filed on 25 March 2014 as soon as is practicable after the making of this order.

3.      The costs of the application be reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SERVICE – whether service effected on a party

COUNSEL:

S K Closter for the applicant

No appearance for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The Crime and Misconduct Commission for the applicant

No appearance for the respondents

HER HONOUR:   There was a hearing today of various orders sought in an originating application filed on 25 March 2014.  I have made orders with regard to property owned by the first and second respondent.  However, some of the property, it is apparent, is not owned by either of them, but rather by a company and/or a family trust.  No notice has been given to those entities.  In such circumstances, I have adjourned the hearing of the application made with regard to that property, pending notice being given to the owners of that property, which the solicitor for the applicant has undertaken to do.

At the request of the respondent, I have adjourned the question of whether or not a restraining order which, through error, was allowed to lapse, can give rise to the opportunity for the applicant to make an application for a restraining order with regard to the same property on the same grounds.  The respondent has requested time to consider that question, and that has not been opposed by the applicant. 

______________________