Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors  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 …show more content…
Likewise with the application for MDLA 415, statements made by Mr Meyer supporting the belief the application for MDLA 295 was made with a view to expand the mining capabilities of the current mining venture area the subject of ML 20152, in which the application was made via an agent for the partnership (held on trust for the partnership). Further to the comments from the Public Trustee, in which they assert that Mr James, only held an interest in MDLA 295 as an agent for the partnership. The Judge in determining his decision, further noted the application for MDLA 415 came by reason of the nomination document (contained the signature and was executed by K Nielsen as the agent for the Public Trustee and director of Pitgate), further to the receipt of the letter from the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy as an agent for the partnership.
Also further reference was made by the Applicants’ to the cases of Tasmanian Seafoods Pty Ltd v Peters (1999) QSC 144 and Swift v Dairywise Farms Limited (2000) 1 A11ER 320 in which both cases the interest held by the parties were subject to a trust, similar to the interests held by Mr Meyer in relation to MDLA 415, which is held on constructive