Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd v Hoi Fung Hong Br No 09661649 [2003] QSC 122

State Reporting Bureau fecos] ® sc Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings 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. ___ _ {REVISED COPIES iSSUED i State Reporting Bureau [Date4<o / 3 i o3> SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION AMBROSE J 1 No 528 of 1997 CONSOLIDATED MEAT GROUP PTY LTD ACN 065 093 709 Plaintiff and HOI FUNG HONG BR NO 09661649 A COMPANY REGISTERED IN HONG KONG Defendant BRISBANE ..DATE 06/03/2003 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 3 -- MR O'DEA: I have a draft judgment order ---- HIS HONOUR: Oh, do you have a draft judgment? MR O'DEA: Yes. HIS HONOUR: I will indicate that I will make an order in that form except that with respect to the second part of the judgment I will have to comply with the requirements of rule 698(2) and (3). HIS HONOUR: In this matter I indicated to the solicitor for the plaintiff that I proposed to give judgment for the sum contained in the draft judgment that he handed to me but that I would refrain from making any order for costs until he was able to provide me with the date upon which the Magistrates Court jurisdiction was increased from $40,000 to $50,000. I have now been advised that that increase occurred as from 1 August 1997. This action, however, commenced on 20 January 1997. It follows, of course, that at the time this action was commenced the Magistrates Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain it but that the District Court did have jurisdiction to entertain it. Consequently, I have amended the draft judgment to order 06032003 jjh (Ambrose J) 1 10 20 30 40 50 2 JUDGMENT 60 -- 2 of 3 -- that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the action to be assessed on the standard basis as if this proceeding had been commenced in the District Court. I make an order, therefore, in terms of the draft, which I sign today and place with the papers. 06032003 jjh (Ambrose J) 1 10 30 /" 50 3 JUDGMENT 60 -- 3 of 3 --