Taylor v Hobson

[2017] QSC 139

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Taylor & Anor v Hobson & Ors [2017] QSC 139

PARTIES:

ALAN JOHN JEFFREY TAYLOR
(first plaintiff)

WANDANI PTY LTD
(second plaintiff)

v

RICHARD HOBSON
(first defendant)

And

HOBSON INVESTMENTS (NQ) PTY LTD (ACN 102 617 050)
(second defendant)

And

ROBERTS NEHMER McKEE
(third defendant)

And

MALCOLM FISHER
(fourth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S15 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Interlocutory Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

 5 June 2017

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

1.      The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed to be brought on the giving of seven days notice to the first and second defendants.

2.      The plaintiffs are directed to provide written submissions on the costs orders that ought to be made on or before 4 pm Friday 30 June 2017. The first and second defendants are directed to provide written submissions in response on or before 4pm Friday 7 July 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – IMPERMISSIBLE INTERMEDDLING - where the proceeding between the plaintiffs and the third and fourth defendants was settled – where the parties entered into a Deed of Settlement – where the effect of the terms of the Deed caused the proceedings as between the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants to be stayed – where the plaintiffs apply to have the stay lifted – whether the circumstances justifying the stay are no longer operative.

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52, 53A

Elfic Ltd v Macks [2003] 2 Qd R 125, applied

Fostif Pty Ltd v Campbells Cash & Carry Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 83; (2005) 63 NSWLR 203, cited

Giles v Thompson [1993] 3 All ER 321, cited

Taylor & Anor v Hobson & Ors [2016] QSC 226, considered

COUNSEL:

PJ McCafferty for the plaintiffs

KC Fleming QC for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

Bartley Cohen for the for the plaintiffs

Connolly Suthers for the first and second defendants

1. McMeekin J: On 6 October 2016 Boddice J ordered that the proceedings as between the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants (whom I will refer to as the “Hobson defendants”) be stayed: see [2016] QSC 226. The plaintiffs apply to have the stay lifted arguing that the circumstances justifying the stay are no longer operative.

1. The proceedings concern, inter alia, a claim for damages in the sum of over $3.6 million. The plaintiffs allege that they entered into a sale of business agreement as a result of representations made by the Hobson defendants, on occasions in the presence of the third and fourth defendants, the Hobson defendants’ solicitors, and also as a result of representations by the third and fourth defendants. It was alleged the third and fourth defendants were knowingly concerned in the representations made by the Hobson defendants. It is claimed that the representations were made in contravention of sections 52 and 53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974.