Geoscience Resource Recovery LLC v Central Petroleum Limited [2018] QCA 216

Facts: Central Petroleum (CP) had a registered office & place of business in AU. Geoscience Resource Recovery (GRR) was a US corporation with no presence in AU. CP sought declarations that it did not enter into the contract to pay success and retainer fees to GRR.

r 124(1)(g) UCPR (QLD) permitted such service for "a proceeding relating to a contract... made by one or more parties carrying on business or residing in QLD."

Issue: Was the proceeding one “relating to a contract made”? Does the word "made" require the fact that there is/was in existence a contract to which the proceeding relates?

Held: No, the word “made” does not require in existence a contract to which the proceeding relates. One party alleging its existence is sufficient. Therefore, the claim fell under r 124(1)(g) UCPR (QLD) (equivalent is Sch 6(b)) because, despite the dispute wrt the contract’s existence, one party recognised that the contract was made in AU.