Queensland Nickel Sales Pty Ltd v Park in his capacity as liquidator of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (in liq) [2023] FCAFC 150

Federal Court of Australia

Queensland Nickel Sales Pty Ltd v Park in his capacity as liquidator of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (in liq) [2023] FCAFC 150 Appeal from: Park, in the matter of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2022] FCA 1301

File number(s): QUD 406 of 2022

Judgment of: MARKOVIC, BANKS-SMITH, HALLEY JJ

Date of judgment: 6 September 2023

Catchwords: TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – where second respondent (QNI) was former trustee of assets of a joint venture between second and third appellants – whether primary judge erred in finding that the claim by the liquidators of QNI (GPLs) for the funding premium the subject of the litigation funding agreement dated 13 September 2016 between QNI and third respondent (Vannin LFA) and their remuneration and disbursements (together, the Mineralogy Claim Expenses and Liabilities), were properly incurred – whether primary judge erred in determining case on the basis that onus was on appellants to adduce evidence to establish that the Vannin LFA and the funding premium were unreasonable by ordinary commercial standards and whether primary judge erred in finding that the Vannin LFA and funding premium were reasonable by ordinary commercial standards – whether primary judge erred in finding that the Mineralogy Claim Expenses and Liabilities were properly incurred by QNI pursuant to exercise by it of a right of indemnity – whether primary judge erred in finding that the Mineralogy Claim Expenses and Liabilities were properly incurred by QNI as trustee on the basis that it retained obligations as a bare trustee – whether primary judge erred in finding that the Settlement Deed precluded appellants from contending that the Mineralogy Claim Expenses and Liabilities were not properly incurred – appeal dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether appellants require leave to appeal primary judge's decision providing judicial advice, on application from GPLs because appellants were not parties to that application – where appellants appeared before primary judge as interested persons and sought relief relevant to judicial advice sought by the GPLs and QNI and made submissions in support of that relief and in opposition to application for judicial advice – leave to appeal not required