Coopers Animal Health Australia Ltd v Western Stock Distributors [1987] FCA 272

a

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NSW G.398 of 1986 ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: COOPERS ANIMAL HEALTH AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Applicant

AND: WESTERN STOCK DISTRIBUTORS PTY LIMITED, CETHANA NOMINEES PTY LIMITED and AUSTRALIAN STOCK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Respondents CORAM: WILCOX J ay, PLACE: SYDNEY f a : DATE: 16 MARCH 1987 4 or UNDERTAKING Ne ae as saD , THE COURT NOTES THAT: 1. Pending the disposal of the notice of motion, the

respondents by their counsel undertake to the Court that they will take no action to enforce the order for costs made against the applicant on 22 August

1986 other than to tax those costs and to obtain and

serve a certificate of taxation under 0.62 r.45(1) and (2) and, if necessary, a signed and sealed order

under 0.62 r.45(3).

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NSW G.398 of 1986 ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: COOPERS ANIMAL HEALTH AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Applicant

AND: WESTERN STOCK DISTRIBUTORS

PTY LIMITED,

CETHANA NOMINEES PTY LIMITED and AUSTRALIAN STOCK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Respondents

CORAM: WILCOX J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 16 MARCH 1987

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 22 August 1986 I delivered judgment ina proceeding brought by the present applicant Coopers Animal Health Australia Limited against the present respondents, Western Stock Distributors Pty Limited, Cethana Nominees Pty

Limited and Australian Stock Developments Limited. For

reasons which I gave on that day I dismissed the application and I ordered that the present applicant pay to the

respondents their costs of the proceedings.

Subsequently, a notice of appeal was filed. There was some delay in the index of the appeal papers being settled but I am informed that an amended index of appeal papers, which is now not controversial, was filed on 4 December 1986. Apparently by some oversight, 1t was not served upon the solicitors for the respondents. The matter was within the list of cases called over in December with a view to fixing hearing dates at the February sittings of the Full Court but, by common consent of the parties, a February date was not taken. Apparently there were problems on each side in obtaining the services of senior counsel. The present envisagement is that the matter will be heard in the June Full Court sittings. I am told that no difficulty 1s anticipated in having the appeal books ready for that time. Each party is