Phillips v Quinton [2006] FCA 409 (7 April 2006)

Last Updated: 13 April 2006

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Phillips v Quinton [2006] FCA 409

SUZANNE PHILLIPS v HAROLD VICTOR QUINTON

NSD 621 of 2006

LINDGREN J
7 APRIL 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 621 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	SUZANNE PHILLIPS PLAINTIFF
AND:	HAROLD VICTOR QUINTON DEFENDANT
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 APRIL 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for interlocutory orders brought by interlocutory process filed on 27 March 2006 be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 621 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	SUZANNE PHILLIPS PLAINTIFF
AND:	HAROLD VICTOR QUINTON DEFENDANT

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	7 APRIL 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The plaintiff (‘Ms Phillips’), who is unrepresented, applies to me as Corporations Duty Judge for an interlocutory order in the nature of a Mareva injunction and an ancillary disclosure order in support of the Mareva order. She relies on her affidavit filed on 27 March 2006, the text of which comprises 78 pages and the annexures to which, although not paginated, would appear to comprise some two to three hundred pages. As well, Ms Phillips has handed up a chronological history of what she says constitutes a course of ‘concealed fraud’ on the part of the defendant (‘Mr Quinton’).

2 The events in question apparently go back to 22 March 1980 when Ms Phillips’s late father, Ivan George Phillips, was hospitalised: ‘... suffering from anaemia and the onset of senile dementia’.

3 Apparently, her late father granted a power of attorney to Mr Quinton, who also purported to act as a director or perhaps governing director of Maspro Industries Pty Ltd. Ms Phillips alleges that Mr Quinton acted fraudulently, apparently in many respects. One is that he ‘used the voting power of shares held in trust to liquidate Maspro Industries Pty Ltd’.

4 As I understand it, there is an allegation that the power of attorney was obtained from her late father at a time when his mental condition did not enable him validly to grant a power of attorney. As well, apparently there is an allegation that Mr Quinton used his position as a director or governing director of Maspro Industries Pty Ltd in various ways to procure benefits for himself.

5 In response to questions by me, Ms Phillips has informed me that:

•	there have been proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales between herself and Mr Quinton (the nature of which is not known to me);
•	there was a hearing before Powell J in that Court;
•	the question of Mr Quinton’s conduct as a director of the company was not dealt with in that proceeding;
•	Ms Phillips had legal representation in the Supreme Court but she was not satisfied with her former lawyers’ conduct of her case.

The chronology handed up suggests that the last event to have occurred was in 1992, although Ms Phillips has referred to some later events in the 1990s and in 2002.

6 Whatever else may be said, I am not satisfied that there is a threat by Mr Quinton to dissipate assets, calling for urgent ex parte relief. Ms Phillips does not point to evidence of such a threat, but relies upon what she says is a long course of fraudulent concealment. That does not persuade me that Mr Quinton is about to make away with assets so as to defeat any cause of action which Ms Phillips may have against him.

7 For this reason the application for the interlocutory injunction is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.

Associate:

Dated: 13 April 2006

The plaintiff appeared in person.
There was no appearance for the defendant.
Date of Hearing:	7 April 2006
Date of Judgment:	7 April 2006