Stoush between Anthony Quinn, Danny Isaac and Descon Group Australia in second court battle

A fiery feud between Gold Coast developers has spread to a second court action, with accusations of a “threatening” text message and an attempt to back out of a cash settlement.

A fiery feud between Gold Coast developers has spread to a second court action, with accusations of a “threatening” text message, a bungled public relations exercise and an attempt to back out of a cash settlement.

The bitter falling out, laid out in court documents, saw developer Anthony Quinn chasing more than $1m in the Federal Circuit Court from Descon Group Australia and its directors Danny Isaac and Greg Sneeden.

Former Descon employee Mr Quinn, who runs development company QNY, claimed he was owed more than $1m in unpaid wages and losses over a property investment.

The battle has now sparked a second case, in the Brisbane District Court, with Mr Quinn suing Descon and Mr Isaac, who also runs Adcon Group, for a six-figure sum.

In his statement of claim for the District Court proceedings, Mr Quinn said Descon and Mr Isaac agreed to settle the Federal case by paying him $745,000 – money which is yet to be paid.

Mr Quinn is seeking payment of a $150,000 first instalment, along with $22,000 in legal fees, interest and other costs.

Anthony Quinn.

Danny Isaac.

The claim said payment of the $745,000 was to begin with the initial $150,000 by December 22 last year, with the remainder in $35,000 instalments twice a month from January.

However, the first payment was scuppered by a disagreement over a photo shoot requested by Mr Isaac, who wanted to hand the cheque to Mr Quinn in front of Descon signage at the company’s George St office.

Mr Quinn’s claim said Mr Isaac had “threatened to embarrass” him if the photo shoot was at the Descon office, sending a text message that “all Descon staff (were) ready to watch”.

Mr Quinn instead offered to meet either at his lawyer’s Brisbane office, or in the public square opposite the Supreme and District Court complex at noon on December 22 to receive the cheque.

Mr Quinn’s claim said Descon’s lawyer rejected that time and place, so he offered to meet at another two locations in Brisbane – including an address listed as Descon’s office on the settlement deed.

The claim said Mr Quinn and his lawyer waited at the Eagle St office, ready for the cheque handover, for two and a half hours on December 22, after sending three emails to Descon’s lawyer telling them they would be there.

In a defence and counterclaim lodged with the District Court of Brisbane, Descon and Mr Isaac denied they had rejected Mr Quinn’s proposal to meet in the public square or barrister’s office.

The defence said Descon’s lawyers had told Mr Quinn of their “requirement” to meet at the Descon office “to enable a suitable background for the photograph that depicts (Descon’s) signage” and that he had “unreasonably refused”.

It also denied Descon had rejected Mr Quinn’s offer to meet at other locations.

An artist impression from the Descon Australia website of its proposed tower at Surfers Paradise Bvd.

The defence said because Mr Quinn had “unreasonably refused” to participate in the photo shoot, Descon and Mr Isaac had been unable to make “the publications” it hoped to make about the matter.

Mr Isaac’s counterclaim asked for the settlement to be set aside because Mr Quinn had failed to fulfil his obligations under the settlement.

Mr Quinn’s answer to the counterclaim described its allegations as “nonsensical and embarrassing”.

Mr Quinn denied the settlement deed had any requirement for the cheque exchange and photo to happen at any specific location, and it did not entitle the defendants to unilaterally nominate a location.

The reply said the settlement imposed no obligation on Mr Quinn to take part in a PR exercise, but merely entitled the defendants and Mr Sneeden to publish a media release.

Mr Quinn’s reply said he was willing and able to participate in the photo shoot and receive the cheque at multiple different alternative times and places.

Mr Quinn said his refusal to attend the photo shoot at Descon’s office was entirely reasonable given the settlement related to his termination from the company and that Mr Isaac “threatened to embarrass” him.

The case remained open on Friday.

Originally published as Stoush between Anthony Quinn, Danny Isaac and Descon Group Australia in second court battle