FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Maxwell-Smith v S & E Hall Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 198 INGE MAXWELL-SMITH & ANOR v S & E HALL PTY LTD N85 OF 2002 HEEREY, LINDGREN AND MERKEL JJ 31 MAY 2002 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N85 OF 2002 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: INGE MAXWELL-SMITH EUGENE MAXWELL-SMITH APPELLANTS AND: S & E HALL PTY LTD RESPONDENT JUDGES: HEEREY, LINDGREN AND MERKEL JJ DATE OF ORDER: 31 MAY 2002 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeals are dismissed. 2. The appellants pay the costs of the repspondent including reserved costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N85 OF 2002 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: INGE MAXWELL-SMITH EUGENE MAXWELL-SMITH APPELLANTS AND: S & E HALL PTY LTD RESPONDENT JUDGES: HEEREY, LINDGREN AND MERKEL JJ DATE: 31 MAY 2002 PLACE: SYDNEY THE COURT: REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellants appeal against orders of Allsop J made on 25 January 2002 which: (1) dismissed the appellants' applications against the respondent in N895 and N896 of 2001; (2) dismissed the appellants' applications N7225 and N7226 to set aside a bankruptcy notice dated 26 March 2001; and (3) ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs. 2 The background to this matter involves the construction of a dwelling house by the respondent builder for the appellants. The complex history of the disputes and litigation between the parties are set out in his Honour's judgment. The appellants' submissions to us essentially repeated the submissions made by them to his Honour. 3 In our view his Honour was plainly correct, for the reasons he gave, in holding that the appellants are attempting to re-litigate matters that have been determined against them by the Consumer Claims Tribunal and courts of competent jurisdiction in New South Wales. 4 The appeals will be dismissed with costs, including reserved costs. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. Associate: Dated: 19 June 2002 Counsel for the Appellants: The appellants appeared in person Solicitor for the Appellants: Counsel for the Respondent: Mr E Petersen Solicitor for the Respondent: Sautelle & White Date of Hearing: 31 May 2002 Date of Judgment: 31 May 2002