Essington Developments Ltd v Historic Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [1990] QSCFC 58

IN THE SUPREME C OURT OF QUEENSLAND l FULL COURT BEFORE: No. 852 of 1990 The Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Macrossan) Mr. Justice Kelly S.P.J. Mr. Justice Connolly BRISBANE, 31 JULY 1990 (Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Chief Court Reporter,Court Reporting Bureau.) BETWEEN: ESSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LTD. Appellant (Plaintiff) -and- First HISTORIC HOLDINGS PTY.LTD. Respondent (First Defendant) -and- Second CIGNA INSURANCES AUSTRALIA PTY.LTD. Respondent (Second Defendant) 20 30 JUDGMENT MR. JUSTICE MACROSSAN: This appeal comes to us seeking the reversal of an order made by the learned judge in Chambers refusing to grant an injunction to the plaintiff/appellant . In brief the plaintiff had sought an injunction against Cigna Insurances' paying to Historic Holdings a sum due to be paid under a bond when demand might be made by Historic Holdings upon Cigna Insurances. I do not pause to set out the terms of the bond more fully because events have happened which render that, in my view, unnecessary. The learned Chamber judge refused the claim of Essington to restrain Cigna Insurances from the payment to Historic Holdings essentially because it thought Essington Developments had no standing in the matter. Whether that decision was 40 50 60 lr:nter, Qld. l [1990] QSCFC 58 -- 1 of 3 -- right or wrong we are not called upon to decide in the events that have happened, although there is substantial reason for thinking it may have been correct. Following the refusal of relief to Essington, Cigna Insurances has paid over the sum in question under the bond but the parties intervened to make some private arrangement amongst themselves. Cigna clearly had its reason to be free of its obligation and accordingly it proposed to pay to Historic Holdings but Historic Holdings, no doubt under the pressures of the litigation, was prepared to come to some agreement with another interested party under the arrangements with it, Thiess Watkins. The result was that Cigna Insurances paid the money into Court but the sum in question was then disposed of rather differently. Under an arrangement between the parties it has been placed in an interest-bearing account in the name of Historic Holdings. That apparently was done under a further order made by consent in this Court,that is,at the request ultimately of the parties. The action which the proceedings sought to restrain, namely the payment over by Cigna Insurances, has already occurred and the proceeds of the payment have been dealt with under a private arrangement between the parties. We are not called upon to determine the ultimate rights to this money. We merely have to deal with the appeal which is brought to us from the decision of the Chamber judge. It seems to me there is no order which this Court could usefully make as to entitlement because the relevant rights which were involved have already been disposed of by private arrangement amongst the parties. In the circumstances, since the money has been paid over by Cigna Insurances to an G214— Govt. Printer, Qld. 2 -- 2 of 3 -- ] 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 agreed destination it is apparent that the appeal which sought to restrain that action no longer is a claim for consideration and accordingly I think the correct order is simply to dismiss the appeal. MR. JUSTICE KELLY: I agree. MR. JUSTICE CONNOLLY: I agree. MR. JUSTICE MACROSSAN: The order will be the usual order, namely, that both the first respondent and the second respondent will have their costs including reserved costs if any. Qld. 3 -- 3 of 3 --