NOT CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR CIRCULATION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. G.232 of 1986 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G.233 of 1986 we wee ws GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: SWITZERLAND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Applicant E Q.B.E. INSURANCE LIMITED Respondent AND BETWEEN: FORSIKRINGSSELSKABET TOP INTERNATIONAL Applicant AND: Q.B.E. INSURANCE LIMITED Respondent EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BURCHETT J. As I rather suggested during argument, it does seem to me that the true point of paragraph (c) of sub-rule (2) of rule 2 Order 8 is to ensure that leave is not given in clgi 2. brought. I think what was said by Lord Simonds in the Vitkovic case [1951] A.C. 869 at p.878, though formulated in accordance with the somewhat differently worded English rule, evinces a similar approach. In my view, if one takes that approach, in a case such as this, where clearly the applicant for leave is not in a position to bring all of the relevant facts before the Court, but where it does appear that the allegations have already been made in the Court in what appear to be proceedings not brought lightly, there is a sufficient basis for holding that the purpose of paragraph (c) of the sub-rule has been fulfilled. Accordingly, I think it is an appropriate case to dispense with literal compliance with the terms of the paragraph, so I am prepared to make the first order sought in the notice of motion. Is there a second notice of motion in the other matter? MR. CAMPBELL: There is, in the same terms. HIS HONOUR: I do that in respect of each notice of motion. Then the second order sought is that the cross-claimant have leave to serve the cross-claim on the first cross-respondent outside the Commonwealth and in the United Kingdom. That is identical in each notice of motion? MR. CAMPBELL: It is, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: I think in each case it has been shown that it is appropriate that the cross-claimant should have that leave. I am satisfied as to each of the matters in sub-rule (2) of rule 2 other than paragraph (c), and I do not find it necessary to reach a conclusion about 3. paragraph (c) because of the order I have just made. I reserve the costs in respect of each notice of motion. I thank you, Mr. Campbell, for the interesting presentation of the problem. I do not really think it is appropriate in an ex parte matter to go into a detailed judgment. I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Burchett. CLG 00. ees Associate Dated: 18 November, 1986.