Connelly (liquidator) v Papadopoulos, in the matter of TSK QLD Pty Ltd

Orders against the First and Third Defendants 3 As outlined in the judgment, Mr Papadopoulos and Leopho failed to appear at trial and default judgment was entered against them. Neither they nor the trustee in bankruptcy appointed to the estate of Mr Papadopoulos have consented to, or otherwise provided submissions concerning, the payment of interest on the amounts awarded against them. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs have provided calculations in support of the quantum of interest which they seek, and I am satisfied that these calculations are correct and that the orders sought are appropriate and should be made.

Orders against the Whitehouse defendants 4 The quantum of interest proposed as being payable by the Whitehouse defendants was the subject of agreement between the plaintiffs and Whitehouse defendants, and was supported by calculations provided by the plaintiffs. As such, those orders will be made. 5 The plaintiffs and Whitehouse defendants dispute the costs order to be made against the Whitehouse defendants. It is to this issue that I now turn. 6 The Whitehouse defendants submit that costs should be apportioned relative to their involvement in the proceedings as against the other defendants, with costs excluded in relation to: (1) the plaintiffs' application of 21 September 2023 for ancillary orders against Torquejobs and Mr Lopez; (2) Federal Court proceeding QUD402/2022, which was brought against Mr Papadopoulos and later consolidated with these proceedings; and (3) Part H of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, which concerned a debt claim against Leopho for recovery of a shareholder loan. 7 The Whitehouse defendants submit that they were powerless to prevent the incurring of costs by the plaintiffs in respect of the matters in (1) and (2), and that, as they were not the subject of the application for ancillary orders or the proceeding against Mr Papadopoulos, those costs should be excluded from their liability as to costs. However, as the plaintiffs submit, the application for ancillary orders and the proceeding against Mr Papadopoulos are procedural features of this proceeding and should be included in the award of costs in the usual way. This is especially as Mr Whitehouse was the architect of the scheme (as found at J [5]) and it was the transfer of property between entities controlled by Mr Papadopoulos and Mr Lopez which prompted the application for ancillary orders and the proceeding against Mr Papadopoulos. Further, the matters in (1) and (2) do not constitute special or unusual circumstances which would justify the plaintiffs being deprived of their costs. 8 As to (3), that part of the claim lacks the same degree of commonality of facts and evidence as the other claims in the proceeding, and so, for that reason, I agree that the costs associated with that aspect of the plaintiffs' claim should not form part of the costs order against the Whitehouse defendants. 9 The Whitehouse defendants also rely on the fact that substantial parts of the Further Amended Statement of Claim were struck-out to reflect the discontinuance of the proceedings against certain defendants. They submit that, by the time the claims were settled against those defendants on or about 22 December 2023, the majority of the plaintiffs' evidence had been prepared. The Whitehouse defendants urge the Court to infer from these matters that costs were incurred by the plaintiffs prior to 22 December 2023 which may have been solely or mainly referable to the defendants against whom the plaintiffs settled and which were unnecessary to be incurred in respect of the Whitehouse defendants. They also submit that the plaintiffs tendered an affidavit of Mr Connelly dated 17 August 2023 of some 8,618 pages and which exhibited roughly 650 documents, but relied on substantially fewer documents at trial. 10 However, as the plaintiffs have enjoyed complete success against the Whitehouse defendants, I am not persuaded that (subject to the one exception referred to above) costs should not follow the event, being the general rule. 11 Further, the matters referred to by the Whitehouse defendants do not, in my view, constitute special or unusual circumstances which would justify the plaintiffs being deprived of a costs order in their favour.

Conclusion 12 The orders sought by the plaintiffs in relation to interest will be made. In relation to costs, I will order that the Whitehouse defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding, save for the costs incurred in relation to Part H of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be taxed. I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Downes.

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES QUD 425 of 2022 Defendants Fourth Defendant: CIANO ST JOHN LOPEZ Fifth Defendant: DUNCAN ATHOL BREMNER Sixth Defendant: RACHEL HELEN RUTH BREMNER (ALSO KNOWN AS RACHEL HELEN RUTH DAVIS) Seventh Defendant: INNOVANT CONSULTING PTY LTD (ACN 637 244 930) Eighth Defendant: INNOV DEBT CO PTY LTD (ACN 650 666 434) Ninth Defendant: INNOV-D PTY LTD (ACN 650 664 083) IN ITS OWN CAPACITY AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE INNOV DEBT TRUST Tenth Defendant: BENJAMIN PAUL WHITEHOUSE Eleventh Defendant: REKOVER PTY LTD (ACN 641 270 019)