Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Glen Ian Ebert - [2025] QSC 109

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Glen Ian Ebert [2025] QSC 109

PARTIES:

ZUCE TECH PTY LTD (ACN 624749257)
(plaintiff)
v
GLEN IAN EBERT

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 11846 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 May 2025

JUDGE:

Freeburn J

ORDERS:

1.   The costs of the application for security for costs will be reserved.

2.   The dispensation from the pleading rules will extend to paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim.

3.   I will hear the parties on the form of the orders.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GENERALLY – where the defendant applied for security for costs – where the director of the plaintiff company gave an undertaking to the court in the course of the hearing – where that undertaking was accepted – where the costs of the application remain contested – where the applicant seeks indemnity costs – where the applicant previously offered to accept a joint undertaking in place of a contested application – whether the applicant should be awarded indemnity costs

PROCEDURE –CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where the defendant made an application for security for costs – where the director of the plaintiff company gave an undertaking to the court in the course of the hearing – where that undertaking was accepted – where there were a number of discretionary factors to be balanced in the absence of the undertaking being accepted – where the respondent may or may not have succeeding in resisting security for costs – where the amount of security to be provided remains unresolved – where the plaintiff has a strong prima facie case – whether costs of the application should be awarded on a party/party or standard basis

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – DEPARTURE – where the defendant applies for dispensation from the pleading requirements under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the defendant seeks dispensation from the pleading requirements – where the defendant relies on the privilege against self-incrimination to seek dispensation –where there is a real risk of criminal proceedings against the defendant – where the allegations in this civil proceeding are directly relevant to potential future criminal proceedings – where privilege against the risk of incrimination is a substantive right – whether the defendant should be allowed dispensation from the pleading rules in his response to paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 165, r 166

Accident Insurance Mutual Holdings Ltd v McFadden (1993) 31 NSWLR 412, cited

BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (formerly Borg-Warner Australia Ltd) v Patterson (1990) 20…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Glen Ian Ebert

Details

AGLC: Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Glen Ian Ebert [2025] QSC 109
Case: [2025] QSC 109
Decision Date: 20 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zuce Tech Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Glen Ian Ebert, and Ebert applied for security for costs. Ebert also sought an order for dispensation from the pleading requirements under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether Ebert should be awarded indemnity costs and whether Ebert should be granted dispensation from the pleading rules. The court also needed to decide the appropriate basis for costs in the interim proceedings.

In relation to indemnity costs, the court acknowledged that Ebert had previously offered to accept a joint undertaking in lieu of a contested application. However, the court found that the circumstances did not warrant an award of indemnity costs to Ebert. The court balanced various discretionary factors and concluded that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case. Regarding the basis for costs, the court decided that the costs of the application should be awarded on a party/party basis rather than a standard basis. The court also granted Ebert's application for dispensation from the pleading rules in relation to certain paragraphs of the statement of claim, due to the real risk of criminal proceedings against Ebert and the relevance of the allegations in the civil proceedings to those potential criminal proceedings.

The court reserved the issue of the costs of the security for costs application and ordered that the parties would be heard on the form of the orders. The court granted Ebert's application for dispensation from the pleading rules in relation to specific paragraphs of the statement of claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The costs of the application for security for costs will be reserved.

2. The dispensation from the pleading rules will extend to paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim.

3. I will hear the parties on the form of the orders.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Glen Ian Ebert [2025] QSC 109
PARTIES:	ZUCE TECH PTY LTD (ACN 624749257) (plaintiff) v GLEN IAN EBERT (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 11846 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 May 2025
JUDGE:	Freeburn J
ORDERS:	1. The costs of the application for security for costs will be reserved. 2. The dispensation from the pleading rules will extend to paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim. 3. I will hear the parties on the form of the orders.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GENERALLY – where the defendant applied for security for costs – where the director of the plaintiff company gave an undertaking to the court in the course of the hearing – where that undertaking was accepted – where the costs of the application remain contested – where the applicant seeks indemnity costs – where the applicant previously offered to accept a joint undertaking in place of a contested application – whether the applicant should be awarded indemnity costs PROCEDURE –CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where the defendant made an application for security for costs – where the director of the plaintiff company gave an undertaking to the court in the course of the hearing – where that undertaking was accepted – where there were a number of discretionary factors to be balanced in the absence of the undertaking being accepted – where the respondent may or may not have succeeding in resisting security for costs – where the amount of security to be provided remains unresolved – where the plaintiff has a strong prima facie case – whether costs of the application should be awarded on a party/party or standard basis PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – DEPARTURE – where the defendant applies for dispensation from the pleading requirements under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the defendant seeks dispensation from the pleading requirements – where the defendant relies on the privilege against self-incrimination to seek dispensation –where there is a real risk of criminal proceedings against the defendant – where the allegations in this civil proceeding are directly relevant to potential future criminal proceedings – where privilege against the risk of incrimination is a substantive right – whether the defendant should be allowed dispensation from the pleading rules in his response to paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 165, r 166 Accident Insurance Mutual Holdings Ltd v McFadden (1993) 31 NSWLR 412, cited BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (formerly Borg-Warner Australia Ltd) v Patterson (1990) 20…