Martin, L. v Linda Martin Pty Ltd (formerly known as Horseless Carriages Pty Ltd) [1986] FCA 75

NOT CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR CIRCULATION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. 8 of 1984

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN : LINDA MARTIN

Applicant

LINDA __ MARTIN PTY. LIMITED {FORMERLY KNOWN _ AS HORSELESS CARRIAGES PTY. LIMITED)

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER OF THE COURT

Judge Making Order: Burchett J. Date of Order: 14 March 1986 Where Made: Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1) No order be made in respect of the examination of Malcgim Nelson Johns.

(2) Linda Martin Pty. Limited (formerly known as Horseless Carriages Pty. Limited) pay one-half of the applicant's taxed costs of the application.

(3) There be no other order as to the costs of any party.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. :

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. 8 of 1984

wee ww

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN : LINDA MARTIN

Applicant

LINDA MARTIN PTY. LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HORSELESS CARRIAGES PTY. LIMITED)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BURCHETT J.

This motion arises in circumstances which, fortunately, are unusual. The applicant is the judgment creditor pursuant to a judgment given by Wilcox J. on 28 September 1984 in proceedings brought under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. A motion was filed on 8 July 1985, on behalf of the applicant, which named, as respondent, Horseless Carriages Pty. Limited, and was headed with the number of the original action and a reference to the Trade Practices Act 1974. This Notice of Motion sought orders for examination of "the Respondent" (sic), and also its directors and Malcolm Nelson Johns, a solicitor who acted for the company in

the action and in respect of an appeal which was lodged on its

2.

behalf. The Notice of Motion was served upon at least one former director and upon Mr. Johns. However, on the day before the return date, notice was given that the applicant would not be proceeding on that motion, and when the matter was called on before me the applicant's counsel, Mr. Libling, indicated that it was intended to proceed upon a fresh motion. The original motion was accordingly dismissed, and I reserved the costs of it. The applicant then moved upon afresh Notice of Motion, filed in Court. That Notice of Motion named no respondent, and had not been served on anyone. By it, orders were sought that certain persons, including directors and former directors of the company and Malcolm Nelson Johns, attend before the Court for