Terblanche v Jewell

[2013] QDC 38

[2013] QDC 38

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE R JONES

No 1613 of 2013

SHERRIE CHARLOTTE HELEN TERBLANCHE

and

SHARMA LAWYERS

and

JULIA JUDITH JEWELL

and

PETER CHARLES JEWELL

and

CRAIG LEONARD STEVENSON

Applicants

Defendants

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/02/2013

ORDER

HIS HONOUR:  I have before me an application which is filed in the Supreme Court, Registry No 1613/13.

The substantive part of the relief sought is that until further orders the third respondent, Craig Leonard Stevenson, and the first and second respondents, Julia and Peter Jewell, be restrained from seeking payment to them the sum of $50,374.94 currently held in the trust account of Sharma Lawyers.

In reality the relief sought, as it emerged during discussion, was a stay of orders made by Judge McGill on 15 February 2013.  The orders made by his Honour on the 15th of February 2013 relevantly included an order to the effect that "the solicitor for the plaintiff pay the money held in his trust account pursuant to orders of the Court in this proceeding, to Craig Stevenson of 9 Devoy Street, Ashgrove within seven days."

Mr Sharma appeared for the plaintiff seeking a stay of those orders until certain proceedings are dealt with, namely whether or not the first and second respondents were in truth entitled to those moneys now held in Mr Stevenson's trust account.

It appears to me that all the matters that Mr Sharma intended to agitate before me in favour of granting a stay in respect of the orders made by Judge McGill were fully agitated before his Honour and I have no reason to doubt that his Honour would have fully taken the matters raised by Mr Sharma into account when he made the orders that he did.

In any event, during the course of argument Mr Sharma consented to the application, for what was effectively a stay of the orders made by Judge McGill - consented to that application being dismissed.  On the material before me that appears to be an entirely appropriate course of action.

I should indicate that the file was referred to me from Justice Mullins who had this matter placed before her erroneously by solicitors for the plaintiff.

The stay application in respect of the orders made by McGill DCJ on 15 February 2013 is refused.

The orders made by Jones DCJ on 21 February 2013 are varied but only to the extent of deletion of any reference to the Supreme Court proceedings which remain on foot.
...

HIS HONOUR:  The applicants are to pay the - and you are the third respondent on the application, aren't you?  To make it abundantly clear, the applicants are to pay the third respondent - is that right?

MR SHARMA:  That's correct, on this paperwork, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  The third respondent's costs of and incidental to today's application on the standard basis.

...

HIS HONOUR:  To be agreed, and if not agreed, to be assessed.  Sorry?

...

-----