Bernardi & Ors v London Partners Australia Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 351

State Reporting Bureau )aoc4-] GSC 35| Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General T•'nue/M'iMf /\f DM/Nre* i i cii iov/1 ijjrt v/i r luwccumyo Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION JONES J REVISED COPIES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau Date: 13 September, 2004 Application No 314 of 2004 MARIO GIOVANNI BERNARDI and MILYANA CATHERINE BERNARDI and JACK ANTHONY BERNARDI and LONDON PARTNERS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 057 549 925) CAIRNS .. DATE 08/09/2004 First Applicant Second Applicant Third Applicant Respondent JUDGMENT WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings. 1 4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 2 -- 08092004 D.l T9 /AW M/T CNS1/2004 (Jones J) HIS HONOUR: This is an application for leave to proceed against the respondent company which, as revealed to the Court, is subject to a deed of administration. As a consequence leave is required pursuant to the provisions of section 444E of the Corporations Act 2001. The nature of the proceedings are damages for breach of duty of care, and breach of statutory duty by the corporate respondent who is a financial adviser and accountants to the applicants. This application has been brought to the attention of the solicitors of the creditors who have sought the administration of the company, and it has been brought to the attention as well of the solicitors who act for the respondent company in respect of these proceedings. On the material' before me I am satisfied that the 'insurer of the respondent for claims of this kind has agreed to indemnify the company and in those circumstances there is no reason why leave should not be granted. Accordingly, I grant leave to the plaintiffs to proceed with the action, being Cairns District Court action number 368 of 2002, against the respondent company which is subject to the deed of company arrangement. The costs of and incidental to the application will be costs in the cause. 2 JUDGMENT -- 2 of 2 --