Villinger Group Ltd v Redmond

[2009] QSC 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Villinger Group Ltd v Redmond [2009] QSC 60

PARTIES:

VILLINGER GROUP LIMITED
(first plaintiff)
and
GOLDWEALTH GROUP LTD
(second plaintiff)
and
EU YEE PUN RODGER
(third plaintiff)
v
WILLIAM REDMOND
(first defendant)
and
PETER ANTHONY VAN DE GRAAF
(second defendant)
and
LOGIC ECONOMICS PTY LTD ACN 099 487 519
(third defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 9160 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 March 2009

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

1. That the application for leave to file third party notices be dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PARTIES – THIRD PARTY AND SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS – where first and third defendants sought leave to file third party notices- where in the principal proceedings the plaintiffs made claims against the first defendant in contract, negligence and for breach of fiduciary duty for amounts advanced under mortgage transactions as a result of representations – where claims were also made against the third defendant as a knowing party to the first defendant’s breach - where delay bringing the application – whether leave should be granted.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
MGM Containers Pty Ltd v Wockner [2006] QCA 502
Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Co Aust Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 48

COUNSEL:

D A Atkinson for the plaintiff
D Kent for the first and third defendants

SOLICITORS:

McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the plaintiff
Russell and Company for the first and third defendants

1. This is an application by the first and third defendants pursuant to Rule 194 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) for leave to file a third party notice.  A settlement has been reached in the principal proceeding between the plaintiffs and the second defendant, and it is therefore convenient to refer to the present applicants as ‘the defendants’. 

1. The application, as filed, sought leave to file third party notices against seven parties, but at the hearing of the application the defendants limited themselves to seeking leave only in respect of two of the proposed third parties, namely Ian David Lazar and Business Acquisitions Australia Pty Ltd.  The application is opposed by the plaintiffs.

1. The principal proceeding was commenced by a claim and statement of claim issued on 15 October 2007.  The first and second plaintiffs are companies which are effectively controlled by the third plaintiff.  The first defendant is a solicitor who practised in partnership with the second defendant and who is also the sole director and shareholder of the third defendant.  In essence, the plaintiffs contend that the first defendant, whom they allege was retained in his capacity as a legal adviser, advised the plaintiffs in respect of advancing money on mortgage lending transactions from which the plaintiffs would derive very high rates of return.  It is pleaded that the first defendant made…