Zabusky v van Leeuwen

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Zabusky & Anor  v van Leeuwen & Anor [2011] QSC 270

PARTIES:

HARVEY ZABUSKY
(first applicant)
and
VIRGTEL LIMITED IBC NO 311178
(second applicant)
v
HENDRIK VAN LEEUWEN
(first respondent)
and
JAMES CONOMOS LAWYERS (A FIRM)
(second respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 4405 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

9 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 April 2011

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDERS:

1. The application for the joinder of Amalia Investments Ltd is dismissed.

2. The application for interlocutory injunctive relief is dismissed.

3.  I will hear the parties as to costs including the costs of the hearing on 4 March 2011.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicants seek an order that a company be joined as an applicant – whether the company should be joined as an applicant

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant makes an application for interlocutory injunctive relief –  whether there is a cause of action that founds interlocutory injunctive relief – where application is founded on allegations of misappropriation of money by the first respondent – where the only cause of action against the first respondent identified in the material is the claim pursued by the receiver of a third party in which the first applicant and first respondent indirectly had interest in – whether any cause of action by Virgtel against Mr van Leeuwen to found the claimed interlocutory injunction has been identified by the applicants

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rule 260A

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199, cited
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Winter (1988) 92 FLR 327, cited
Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319, cited
Zucker v Tyndall Holdings plc [1993] 1 All ER 124, cited

COUNSEL:

D R Cooper SC with C Wilson, for the applicants
G C Newton SC with S S Monks for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Tucker & Cowen for the applicants
James Conomos Lawyers for the respondents

1. This is one of numerous pieces of litigation being waged in several jurisdictions between Mr van Leeuwen (and interests associated with him) and Mr Zabusky (and interests associated with him).

1. In Queensland, the principal proceeding between them is No. 6547 of 2005 (“the principal proceeding”).  As I have observed in an interlocutory judgment just delivered in that matter, the van Leeuwen side of the record in the principal proceeding contends that Mr Zabusky wrongly caused large sums of money which were supposed to have been paid to Virgin Technologies Ltd (“VTL”), a Nigerian company in which Mr van Leeuwen and Mr Zabusky indirectly had interests, to be diverted to the benefit of Mr Zabusky, other members of the Zabusky family, and…