IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G96 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: WALTER CORNEILLE CLEMENT MARIE JANUS First Applicant AND: WINJAN PASTORAL COMPANY PTY. LTD. Second Applicant AND: 'TWEED CANAL ESTATES PTY LTD Third Applicant WINGARA ENTERPRISES PTY. LID. Fourth Applicant A.G.C. (ADVANCES) LIMITED First Respondent MACDONALD WAGNER PTY. LTD. Second Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 23 DECEMBER 1987 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application made by notice of motion for a joinder of Messieurs White and Gardiner and G.J. White be dismissed; 2. The applicants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G96 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: WALTER CORNEILLE CLEMENT MARIE JANUS First Applicant AND: WINJAN PASTORAL COMPANY PTY. LTD. Second Applicant AND: TWEED CANAL ESTATES PTY LTD Third Applicant AND: WINGARA ENTERPRISES PTY. LTD. Fourth Applicant AND: A.G.C. (ADVANCES) LIMITED First Respondent AND: MACDONALD WAGNER PTY. LTD. Second Respondent PINCUS J. 23 DECEMBER 1987 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In this matter, an application was made on 24 June 1987 seeking relief under the Trade Practices Act and otherwise. The statement of claim was delivered on 24 June, and a further version of it was delivered on 21 August 1987. The allegations in the statement of claim, which, if I may say so, with respect, are in an unusual form, consist of a rather more discursive account of events than one would expect to find; they relate, inter alia, to a valuation said to have been made by White and Gardiner Pty. Ltd., and in particular by Mr. G.J. White. The statement of claim has to do with a_ subdivision, which one assumes was rather unsuccessful, and it 1s said that its unsuccess was due wholly or in part to the activities of the financier, the first respondent, and the consulting engineer, the second respondent. The allegations range over a _ considerable area. For example, it 1s said against the second respondent that their estimates were badly done and that their work was defective in other respects. The case has proceeded a considerable way and has been pending for six months. The applicants now wish to join the valuers, saying that it is convenient to try their claim against the valuers with the other proceedings. In my opinion, that seems plainly enough not to be so. There 1s no reason to assume that to get the claim against the valuers up to the stage which the existing claim has reached would take a lesser time than the six months which has to date elapsed. Experience suggests that the longer these cases are pending, the more they cost and the more troublesome they are to the parties. It seems to me plain that, if the applicants wish to pursue a claim against the valuers, they should do so in separate proceedings. The application will therefore be dismissed, that is, the application made by notice of motion for a joinder of Messieurs White and Gardiner and G.J. White, will be dismissed, and the costs of that application are to be the costs of the respondents, A.G.C. Pty. Ltd. in any event. (Advances) Limited and Macdonald Wagner pines ere a frog cory of me recsure or judg rer ho ao His Honour Mtr Justice Pincus site Associate Dated 23 Decembes 1987