Mogdon Investments Pty Ltd v P.R. & S.A. Tarling [1987] FCA 493

- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

JUDGMENT No. a

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

) ) ) ) No. ACT of G 71 of 1986 ) ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: MOGDON INVESTMENTS PrY LIMITED

Applicant

AND: PAUL RICHARD TARLING and SHIRLEY ANNE TARLING

Respondents

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER : Neaves J.

DATE OF ORDER : 10 September 1987

WHERE MADE ~~, : Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents of the application.

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

14 SEP 1987

FEDERAL cou; AUSTRALIA. OF

PRINCIP, REGISTRY

PN eee, ene eee

eee ser ge eee ae oe ri ¢ Ne

oan a

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY No. ACT of G 71 of 1986

DISTRICT REGISTRY

wewvevewrw

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN : MOGDON INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

Applicant

AND: PAUL RICHARD TARLING and SHIRLEY ANNE TARLING

Respondents

CORAM: Neaves J.

DATE: 10 September 1987

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By an application filed in this Court on 10 July 1987 Mogdon Investments Pty Limited ("Mogdon") seeks "leave to appeal from the decisions of his Honour Mr Justice Miles given in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 17 October 1986". ~ The respondents to the application are Paul Richard Tarling and Shirley Anne Tarling ("the Tarlings"). A notice of appeal from those decisions had been filed on behalf of Mogdon on 6 November 1986 on the basis that leave to appeal Was unnecessary. However, after the competency of the appeal as of right was questioned, the application for leave to appeal was filed. Although counsel for Mogdon, 1n opening the matter, suggested that there was a preliminary question whether leave to appeal was necessary, no substantive argument was presented

on that issue. I have no doubt that, if an appeal lies in the