Williams v Nathan

[2019] QSC 150

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williams v Nathan [2019] QSC 150

PARTIES:

Daniel WILLIAMS

(Plaintiff)

v
Julian NATHAN

(First Defendant)
And
NATHAN LAWYERS BRISBANE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 1540104425
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 12663 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

I make orders in terms of the amended draft which I initial and place with the papers.

CATCHWORDS

CORPORATIONS – WINDING UP – GENERALLY – whether the plaintiff ought to receive an order that the first defendant pay his costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis – whether the first defendant ought pay the second defendant’s costs – whether liquidator ought pay to personally pay the plaintiff’s costs of specified events – whether the liquidator ought be entitled to be indemnified by the second defendant for specified costs

COUNSEL:

A Crowe QC, with L Copley, for the plaintiff

P O’Brien for the first defendant
C A Wilkins for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Clarke Kann Lawyers for the plaintiff

Mullins Lawyers for the first defendant
K&L Gates for the second defendant

1. On 23 May 2019, reasons for judgment were delivered in this proceeding.  The parties were directed to prepare draft orders in accordance with those reasons and given leave to file submissions in respect of costs.

2. The parties have been able to largely agree the terms of those orders, other than costs.

3. In respect of costs, the plaintiff seeks orders that the first defendant pay his costs of the proceeding, and those of the second defendant, on an indemnity basis; that the liquidator personally pay the plaintiff’s costs of specified events; and that the liquidator otherwise not be entitled to be indemnified by the second defendant for specified costs.

4. The first defendant does not oppose an order that he pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding but opposes an order for those costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis.  The first defendant also opposes orders requiring that he pay the second defendant’s costs. 

5. The liquidators for the second defendant oppose the costs orders sought by the plaintiff.

6. Having regard to the conclusions reached in the proceeding, there is no reason why the plaintiff ought not to receive an order that the first defendant pay his costs of the proceeding. 

7. The plaintiff’s contention for an entitlement that those costs be assessed on an indemnity basis lies in the conduct of the first defendant, an officer of the court, both in bringing the application for an order that the second defendant be wound up on the just and equitable ground and in the present proceedings. 

8. Those actions include a lack of candour in the material initially relied upon in support of the winding up application and his insistence that funds he had withdrawn from the practice operated by the first defendant without authority were used to meet liabilities of the second defendant, a claim he knew to be false.

9. An…