Federal Court of Australia
fi
YUUGMENT NO. Flee
"pet ae
THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
General Division
No VG 167 of 1980
LAURAINE DIGGINS and
SOUTHERN AUCTIONS PTY LIMITED and A. HUBEN
C.A. SWEENEY J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 27 MARCH 1981, AT 10.15 AM
Copyright in the Commonwealth Government
southdig 27.3.81 1 jgs cc lb
( \t
| Redon
Extract of Proceedings
HIS HONOUR: It would involve adjourning the further consideration of paragraph 3 of your notice of motion to a date to be fixed and giving the parties liberty to file any further material in relation to the relief claimed in paragraph 3 at a time before the matter was heard again. The object of the adjournment is to put the court in the position where it can better understand the likely course of the trial. Have you anything to say as to why I should not make that order?
MR HAZLETT: No, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I will make that order and having made the order is there anything else in your notice of motion you want to raise, other than the question of costs?
MR HAZLETT: No. HIS HONOUR: Do you want to argue the question of costs now? The costs would not relate to paragraph 3,
they would relate to paragraphs 1 and 2.
MR HAZLETT: I do not wish to argue those.
HIS HONOUR: Do you want costs reserved, gentlemen?
MR HAZLETT: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: What do you say, Mr Kistler? MR KISTLER: I have no objection to those orders. HIS HONOUR: Do you want to work out a timetable together
for the future conduct of the matter or is that not necessary?
MR KISTLER: It should follow the normal course in these matters.
HIS HONOUR: If you want some consent directions or if either party wishes directions perhaps if I stood the matter down and you might be able to tell me if you have some consent directions you seek?
MR KISTLER: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: In relation to the notice of motion on behalf of the respondents Southern Auctions Pty Limited and A. Huben the court orders that the questions raised in paragraph 3 of that notice of motion be adjourned to a date to be fixed and reserves the question of costs in relation to the notice of motion. Do you
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate