QLD Law Essay Example
Part A
Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.
1. Explain who were the respective parties to the action. Why were there so many parties?
The respective parties to the action are as follows: The Public Trustee of Queensland as Executor of the Estate of Joseph Edwin James (First Applicant);
Pitgate Pty Ltd (‘Pitgate’) (Second Applicant);
Ian Derek Meyer (‘Mr Meyer’) (First Respondent);
Rosemary Lynn Meyer (‘Mrs Meyer’) (Second Respondent); and
Meyer Gold Mining Pty Ltd (‘MGM’) (Third Respondent).
Originally there was a partnership between Joseph Edwin James (‘Mr James’) and MGM. The partnership constitution then changed, a new partnership was formed between Pitgate and MGM.
Mr James still held a percentage share (49%) in a mining lease, which was also being utilised in the partnership between Pitgate and MGM. The Public Trustee represents the interest of the estate of the late Mr James; along with Pitgate they were appointed receivers and managers of the partnership between Mr James and MGM and trustees of some of the partnership property.
Mr and Mrs Meyer are both directors of MGM, and are all respondents to the action. Mr Meyer in his capacity as director of MGM also acts as an agent for both partnerships.
2. What were the legal issues to be determined with regards to MDLA 415?
The main legal issue to be determined was whether or not Mr Meyer is entitled to the benefit of the application, particularly whether his rights and interests held in respect of the application of MDLA 415 were for the benefit of himself, or for the benefit of the partnership.
3.
Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.
1. Explain who were the respective parties to the action. Why were there so many parties?
The respective parties to the action are as follows: The Public Trustee of Queensland as Executor of the Estate of Joseph Edwin James (First Applicant);
Pitgate Pty Ltd (‘Pitgate’) (Second Applicant);
Ian Derek Meyer (‘Mr Meyer’) (First Respondent);
Rosemary Lynn Meyer (‘Mrs Meyer’) (Second Respondent); and
Meyer Gold Mining Pty Ltd (‘MGM’) (Third Respondent).
Originally there was a partnership between Joseph Edwin James (‘Mr James’) and MGM. The partnership constitution then changed, a new partnership was formed between Pitgate and MGM.
Mr James still held a percentage share (49%) in a mining lease, which was also being utilised in the partnership between Pitgate and MGM. The Public Trustee represents the interest of the estate of the late Mr James; along with Pitgate they were appointed receivers and managers of the partnership between Mr James and MGM and trustees of some of the partnership property.
Mr and Mrs Meyer are both directors of MGM, and are all respondents to the action. Mr Meyer in his capacity as director of MGM also acts as an agent for both partnerships.
2. What were the legal issues to be determined with regards to MDLA 415?
The main legal issue to be determined was whether or not Mr Meyer is entitled to the benefit of the application, particularly whether his rights and interests held in respect of the application of MDLA 415 were for the benefit of himself, or for the benefit of the partnership.
3.