Descon Group Australia and Danny Isaac ordered to pay Anthony Quinn $170k in court judgement

A development and construction company and its managing director have been ordered to pay almost $170,000 to a former employee after two court battles. Here’s what happened

A development and construction company and its managing director have been ordered to pay almost $170,000 to a former employee after two court battles and a tousle over a photo shoot.

In a summary judgment in the Brisbane District Court, Descon Group Australia and its chairman Danny Isaac were ordered to pay now-rival developer Anthony Quinn $150,000, owed under a previous court settlement, as well as $19,500 in costs.

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

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

Descon and Mr Isaac denied the claims but agreed to settle the Federal case, wihtout admitting liability, in November last year by paying Mr Quinn $745,000.

However, the first instalment of he settlement, due in December, failed to take place, court documents said.

Anthony Quinn, Danny Isaac.

The feud between the developers then spread to a second court action, with Mr Quinn suing Descon for the $150,000 first instalment amid accusations, outlined in court, of a “threatening” text message and a bungled public relations exercise.

In the settlement deed, Mr Isaac requested Mr Quinn take part in a photo shoot for distribution to the media “depicting the parties have reconciled”.

According to the court documents, Mr Isaac wanted the shoot to take place at Descon’s Brisbane office, and sent Mr Quinn a text that said he intended “all Descon to see” the photo-shoot and “please trim that beard I want a nice pic”.

Judge Brad Farr.

In his summary judgment in favour of Mr Quinn, Brisbane District Court Judge Brad Farr said Descon and Mr Isaac’s prospects of successfully defending the case were “not realistic”.

The judgement said Descon and Mr Isaac were given three other options for the photo-shoot, aside from the Descon office, and that the settlement still did not occur.

The judgement agreed with Mr Quinn that the settlement deed did not compel those involved to actually reconcile, just to appear that way, and that a confidentiality clause was included to “ensure the world at large does not learn of the parties’ true feelings towards each other”.

“The defendants’ position is untenable and to suggest that they will be able to mount a successful defence is fanciful and speculative,” Judge Farr wrote.

The judgement said Mr Quinn’s case was “overwhelming” and that a trial would be “pointless” because “the undisputed facts in this matter speak for themselves”.