Catalyst Townsville SPV No 1 Pty Ltd v The Presbyterian Church of Queensland

Allens for the defendant in BS 5900 of 2021, for the defendant in BS 12562 of 2021, and for the plaintiff in BS 14920 of 2021.

Crown Law for the intervener in BS 5900 of 2021, BS 12562 of 2021, and BS 14920 of 2021.

• [1] On 3 October 2025, I published reasons in these three proceedings. On that day, directions were made for the parties to confer and attempt to agree upon forms of orders consistent with the published reasons.
• [2] On 29 October 2025, pursuant to those directions, the parties informed the Court that they had agreed on the forms of orders that should be made, subject to the Court exercising its discretion, and provided a draft in each proceeding. The Attorney, as an intervenor, also considered the draft orders. The Attorney does not consider there is anything in the draft orders that she wishes to address.
• [3] The draft orders include the judgment sums and interest. In each case, the interest has been calculated up to and including 29 October 2025. As the calculation of interest has been agreed, it is appropriate for the Court to make orders for interest in the agreed amounts.
• [4] Each of the draft orders provides for the corporation known as the Presbyterian Church of Queensland (the Corporation) to pay the costs of the relevant Catalyst party (or parties) on the indemnity basis. Each relevant Catalyst party has a contractual right to indemnity costs. In exercising the discretion to order costs, the Court considers whether it should be exercised in a way different from the contractual agreement made by the relevant parties.[1] The Corporation does not object to an order being made in terms of the contractual agreements. Nor does it consider that there are any factors which should cause the Court to exercise the discretion other than according to the contractual rights of the Catalyst parties to be awarded indemnity costs.
• [5] In the circumstances, I have made orders providing for the Catalyst parties to recover their costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis.
• [6] No order is sought in respect of the intervention of the Attorney-General.
• [7] The Catalyst parties have advised the Court that the submission of agreed draft orders was not intended to prejudice any right they may have to bring an application for non-party costs orders against the receivers of the Corporation in respect of the proceedings. That position is noted.
• [8] Finally, I am grateful to the parties for having identified some typographical and other minor errors in the published reasons. Those corrections have been made. A revised version of the reasons has been published.

[1] Lee v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2013] QCA 284 at [9] (McMurdo J; Fraser JA and Atkinson J agreeing).