Coast2Coast Property Pty Ltd v Queensland Property Group Pty Ltd [2020] QDC 130

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Coast2Coast Property Pty Ltd v Queensland Property Group Pty Ltd [2020] QDC 130 PARTIES: COAST2COAST PROPERTY PTY LTD CAN 606 513 035 (applicant in the originating application) v QUEENSLAND PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD CAN 615 072 305 (respondent in the originating application and in the application by solicitors for leave to withdraw) FILE NO/S: D109/2019 DIVISION: Civil PROCEEDING: Application for leave to withdraw DELIVERED ON: 19 June 2020 DELIVERED AT: Maroochydore HEARING DATE: Decided on papers without oral hearing JUDGE: Cash QC DCJ ORDERS: Pursuant to r 991(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the solicitor for the respondent is granted leave to withdraw from the record. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION – LEGAL REPRESENTATION – GENERALLY – where Beckhaus Legal seek leave to withdraw from the proceedings to maintain the record of the Court Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 990, r 991 Plenty v Gladwin (1986) 60 ALJR 665; 67 ALR 26 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Davies [2004] 1 Qd R 363; [2002] QSC 241 SOLICITORS: Beckhaus Legal for the applicant for leave to withdraw No appearance for the respondent REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 18 July 2019, Coast2Coast Pty Ltd filed an originating application seeking orders for the appointment of trustees and for the sale of land pursuant to the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). Queensland Property Group Pty Ltd was named as the respondent to -- 1 of 2 -- 2 the application. As early as 16 September 2019 the respondent filed material indicating that the present applicant, Beckhaus Legal, were the solicitors acting for the respondent. In due course further material was filed consistent with Beckhaus Legal being the solicitors on the record for the respondent, and legal practitioners employed by Beckhaus Legal appeared in court. [2] On 20 September 2019 and again on 10 December 2019 orders were made that might be thought to bring to end the matters raised by the application. The order of 10 December 2019 was taken out on 15 January 2020. Nothing happened until 22 May 2020 when Beckhaus Legal filed the present application for leave to withdraw. While it may be that in a practical sense there are no proceedings on foot from which Beckhaus Legal need leave to withdraw, I am prepared to assume that it is possible for there to be further proceedings pursuant to the application filed in July 2019. [3] Leave to withdraw in the present circumstances is governed by rr 990 and 991 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). Such an application is not concerned with any dispute between solicitor and client, but rather with maintaining the record of the Court.1 On the material filed by Beckhaus Legal I am satisfied that Beckhaus Legal has given the respondent appropriate notice pursuant to r 990(1) and served the present application pursuant to r 990(2) and (3). Beckhaus Legal also asked, and gave notice of its intention to ask, for the matter to be heard and determined without oral hearing. I am satisfied that none of the exceptions in r 489. I must therefore determine the matter without an oral hearing and, as I propose to make an order, give written reasons for my decision.2 [4] It is clear to me that Beckhaus Legal no longer act for the respondent. In the circumstances it is appropriate to give them leave to withdraw so that the Court record properly reflects this reality. The order is: 1. Pursuant to r 991(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) the solicitor for the respondent is granted leave to withdraw from the record. 1 Plenty v Gladwin (1986) 60 ALJR 665; 67 ALR 26; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Davies [2004] 1 Qd R 363 ([2002] QSC 241). 2 Rule 498. -- 2 of 2 --