Tabruby Pty Ltd v Belbrooke Pty Ltd - [2025] QSC 249

QUEENSLAND COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

__________________________________________________________
© The State of Queensland (Department of Justice). Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Copyright is not infringed by the reproduction of this transcript for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or a report thereof, pursuant to section 43(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). A copy of this transcript may also be provided to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining professional advice, pursuant to section 43(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). For all other uses, you must not copy, modify or distribute this material without the written authority of the Director, Recording and Transcription Services, Courts and Tribunals.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
TRESTON J
No 11148 of 2020
DANIEL MOORE (SCHEME ADMINISTRATOR) Applicant
AND TRUSTEE FOR THE BELBROOKE
ADMINISTRATION TRUST AND BELBROOKE
MORTGAGE TRUST
and
OCHKIT PTY LTD A.C.N 010 874 058 Respondents
TABRUBY PTY LTD A.C.N. 010 371 061
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CAMPBELL
SUPERANNUATION FUND
MICHAEL LAWRENCE MASTERS AND
DEBRA ANNE MASTERS AS TRUSTEES
FOR THE SUPER HOLIDAY FUND
BARRY CALDER DAHM AND JOAN DAHM
AS TRUSTEES FOR THE BC & J DAHM
SUPER FUND
STEPHEN GEORGE BLADES AND VALERIE
DAWN BLADES AS TRUSTEES
FOR THE CATCH22 SUPER FUND
BELBROOKE PTY LTD A.C.N.159 775 336
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BELBROOKE
ADMINISTRATION TRUST
BELBROOKE PTY LTD A.C.N. 159 775 336
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BELBROOKE
MORTGAGE TRUST
WILLIAM JOHN HENRY HOUWING AND
CHRISTINE LESLEY HOUWING
CHRISTINE LESLEY HOUWING ATF
FOR THE ROSEVALE DISCRETIONARY
TESTAMENTARY TRUST
BRISBANE
2.58 PM, TUESDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2025
DAY 1
JUDGMENT

Any rulings in this transcript may be extracted and revised by the presiding Judge.

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

HER HONOUR: On 28 October 2020, an originating application was filed seeking the appointment of an administrator to a scheme, some of the details of the scheme which I will now set out. The self-represented parties, Mr and Mrs Houwing, were the directors of one of the companies, Belbrooke Proprietary Limited, which company is a trustee of the Belbrooke Mortgage Trust which is a unit trust and the Belbrooke Administration Trust which is a discretionary trust. The primary beneficiaries of which are also Mr and Mrs Houwing.

Mr Houwing was a director and authorised representative of a company, Financial Options. Financial Options held an Australian Financial Services licence and Mr Houwing provided financial advisory services through that business. Mr Houwing would arrange for his investor clients to lend money to related…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Tabruby Pty Ltd v Belbrooke Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Tabruby Pty Ltd v Belbrooke Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 249
Case: [2025] QSC 249
Decision Date: 23 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tabruby Pty Ltd, along with several other superannuation funds, filed an originating application seeking the appointment of an administrator for a scheme, alleging that Belbrooke Pty Ltd, as trustee for the Belbrooke Administration Trust and the Belbrooke Mortgage Trust, had engaged in a managed investment scheme without proper registration. The case was before the Supreme Court of Queensland, with Treston J presiding over the matter. The primary legal issue was whether the order appointing an administrator to the scheme was final and, if so, whether it could be revisited on the grounds of procedural unfairness due to Mr Houwing's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The court found that the order was indeed final, and there was no procedural unfairness in its making. The court further concluded that the application to revisit the scheme order was essentially a backdoor appeal, which was not permissible. The application was dismissed on the basis that the scheme order was final and could not be set aside except through appeal or in proceedings for fraud, neither of which applied in this case. The court also noted that even if the order was not final, the application to revisit it should be dismissed on discretionary grounds, given the significant time that had elapsed since the original order was made.

Orders