Community Planning Concepts Pty Ltd, Re [1998] QSC 303

o o State '35' "36 Reporting Bureau Sc 98 /30lj 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. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTON WILLIAMS J No 7570 of 1998 IN THE MATTER OF THE COR~ORATIONS LAW PART 4.6 DIV3 s.536(1) (2) REVISED COPfES fSSUED State Reporting Bureau Oate ?Sllel ~<l r IN THE MATTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING CONCEPTS PTY LTD ACN 055 698 274 (IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) No 6344 of 1998 o IN THE MATTER OF THE CORPORATIONS LAW o IN THE MATTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING CONCEPTS PTY LTD ACN 055 698 274 (IN VOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATION) BRISBANE .. DATE 08/10/98 JUDGMENT 1 -- 1 of 5 -- 081098 sdh (Williams J) HIS HONOUR: Patrick Francis Farnham and Paula Jane Farnham have filed an application in this Court, returnable, before me today, seeking orders that the orders made by me on 13 July and 20 July 1998 be vacated; and also, as is stated in the application, an order, "that the Families, Yo~th and Community Care licence substituting R T Adcock be vacated pursuant to the meeting minut.e of 2 July 1998." In the course of submissions, which. have been recorded, it was said by Mr Farnham, .who appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife, that what they were seeking to have vacated was the licence granted on 14 November 1997. There was no appearance before me on behalf of any respondent. Mr Farnham gave sworn evidence that on Friday, 2 October 1998, at 3.55 p.m., he serv~d HFC Lawyers of 235 Brunswick Street, Fortitude Valley, the solicitors on the record for the liquidator, Robert Thomas Adcock, with a copy of the application filed 2 October and also a copy of his affidavit and exhibits filed 2 October. I have proceeded on the basis that those solicitors were served and have elected not to appear in response to the application. I should say that on 20 July 1998 a barrister, Mr Ward, appeared and announced his appearance for all respondents. He read an affidavit by Mr Farnham which was filed by leave that day. It therefore seems to me that there was a representation on behalf of the Farnhams before the Court on that day. From submissions, which have been forwarded to the Court and 2 JUDGMENT 10 20 0 o 30 o 40 o 50 60 -- 2 of 5 -- ~ 081098 sdh (Williams J) o o are on the Court file on behalf of the Farnhams, it appears that the principal basis on which it is sought to have my orders on 13th and 20 July vacated is that the Farnhams did not have then a reasonable opportunity to appear and present their case. It is difficult to see how such a case can be made out when they were represented on 20 July by a barrister and an affidavit by Mr Farnham was relied on. The submission was made today that they did not have adequate time to present their case but that does not, in my view, establish a basis for setting aside the orders made in the circumstances I have indicated. I should also record that the Farnhams are seeking leave to appeal from my orders made in July 1998 and also from other orders made by judges of this Court. If there was any error of law with respect to the making of the orders on 13 or 20 July, then it is for the Court of Appeal to correct the matter. Error of law does not afford a base for me to revisit o the matters at this stage. o The second order sought relates to the licence. The licence in question is one granted pursuant to the Child Care Act 1991 and the appropriate department administering that Act is the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care. There is a letter from the Department to Mr Farnham dated 14 November 1997 which says that a licence issued to Community Planning Concepts Pty Ltd is enclosed and is not transferable. That formal licence has not been placed before 10 20 30 40 50 me. The proceedings in July before me proceeded on the basis that the licence was held by Community Planning Concepts Pty 60 3 JUDGMENT -- 3 of 5 -- 081098 sdh (Williams J) Ltd and that appears to have been the view of the Department. On 2 July 1998 Robert Thomas Adcock was appointed as administrator of the company; on that date a resolution was passed placing the company under voluntary administration. At the adjourned meeting of creditors held on 11 August 1998 it was resolved that that company should be liquidated and Adcock was appointed the liquidator. It appears from the material that the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care then issued Adcock, as liquidator, with a licence to operate the child care centre, that step being taken pursuant to section 40 of the Child Care Act 1991. The Farnhams contend that at no time was the licence held by Community Planning Concepts Pty Ltd but that it was held by them personally. It is true that on 7 November 1997 the Farnhams wrote to the Director-General Family Services advising that Community Planning Concepts Pty Ltd had assigned all its legal rights and interests in the licence to them personally. A perusal of the legislation clearly indicates that a holder of a licence cannot unilaterally assign it to anyone; there would have to be, at least, formal approval to the granting of a new licence by the Department pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Following receipt of that letter, on 11 November 1997 the Department wrote to Mr Patrick Farnham and described him as the licensee; but it was three days later that the formal letter was sent, including a licence issued to Community Planning Concepts Pty Ltd. 10 30 40 50 I had difficulty in comprehending what the applicant's 60 4 JUDGMENT o o o -- 4 of 5 -- o o o o 081098 sdh (Williams J) argument was in relation to the licence and the order that they sought in relation to it. Because of that, I agreed to receive in evidence the various letters which became Exhibits 1 to 8. I have perused all of that material and I cannot see that it affords me a basis for setting aside, or vacating to use the word in the application, the licence issued by the Department on 14 November 1997. Further, it seems to me that there is no basis today for my vacating the licence granted pursuant to section 40 of the Act to the liquidator. The present position so far as any trading under the licence is not clear. In my view, it is sufficient for me to say that the material does not disclose any proper basis on which this Court could make any order with respect to either the licence, as granted on 14 November 1997, or as substituted in about August 1998. It follows that there is no basis for this Court today making any of the orders sought in the application and the application should be dismissed. Now, a copy of those reasons will be available, Mr Farnham. If you wish to agitate this matter at the same time as the other appeals, that is a matter that you can take up with the Court of Appeal. I think that's the most that I can say at this stage. The formal order will be application dismissed. 5 JUDGMENT 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 5 of 5 --