Michael Van Thanh Quach ordered to pay legal costs after failed appeal

A businessman’s appeal against a ruling involving a Sunshine Coast cafe has been dismissed, with the judge labelling it a “complete waste of time”.

BRISBANE , AUSTRALIA - NewsWire Photos - BRISBANE , JUNE 24 2024: Generic photo of the scales of justice stature outside Brisbane Supreme Court in the Brisbane CBD. Picture: NewsWire / Glenn Campbell

The Queensland Court of Appeal has dismissed a second appeal by businessman Michael Van Thanh Quach in his ongoing dispute against the Noosa Heads based company.

Mr Quach lost his appeal in a dispute with Suncoast Cafes Pty Ltd, and was ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

The legal dispute arose from a document signed on May 5, 2023, which Mr Quach claimed was a binding contract for the purchase of business assets from Suncoast Cafes for $1.7m.

Mr Quach alleged he had paid an $85,000 deposit and that Suncoast Cafes had failed to honour the sale.

However, Suncoast Cafes maintained the document was not a binding contract but merely an expression of intent, requiring further formal agreements to be finalised.

Mr Quach initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court via an originating application in 2024, seeking orders to prevent the business assets from being sold to other buyers and to compel Suncoast Cafes to complete the sale.

The company opposed the application, arguing there were substantial factual disputes that required pleadings and a formal claim process.

The primary judge agreed with Suncoast Cafes and ordered the case proceed as if commenced by claim, requiring Mr Quach to file a statement of claim.

A sign outside the Supreme Court in Brisbane. (AAP Image/Dan Peled)

The judge also set aside a subpoena Mr Quach had issued to the respondent’s accountant and ordered him to pay Suncoast Cafes’ legal costs.

Mr Quach appealed the ruling, arguing the primary judge’s orders were invalid due to the absence of an application before the court requesting those orders. He lost the appeal and subsequently appealed that decision again.

However, the Court of Appeal, consisting of Judges John Bond, Robert Gotterson, and Thomas Bradley, found no merit in Mr Quash’s argument.

Justice Bond found Mr Quach had failed to identify any legal, factual, or discretionary error in the original ruling, instead presenting flawed arguments that lacked merit.

One of Mr Quach’s key claims, that the Chief Justice had improperly exercised judicial power, was dismissed.

The judgment noted that even if there had been an arguable error, the appeal still would have failed as it concerned a matter of practice and procedure, which required a high threshold for appellate intervention.

The court found no evidence that the Chief Justice’s order had caused any substantial injustice, stating the only real injustice was suffered by the respondent, Suncoast Cafes Pty Ltd.

Justice Bond strongly criticised Mr Quach, dismissing his second appeal as a “complete waste of time” and ordering him to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

Justice Bond said Mr Quach failed to “bring common sense” to the conduct of litigation.

“The appellant’s conduct flies in the face of his obligations,” Justice Bond said.