Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd v Henjo Investments Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 313

ae JUDGMENT No. 2'27 23—

oo . NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSW G.211 of 1985

eee ew

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: COLLINS MARRICKVILLE PTY LIMITED

Applicant

AND: HENJO INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

First Respondent HENRY SAADE

Second Respondent NORMAN PETER GEORGE Third Respondent

SAADE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMIT

Fourth Respondent

CORAM: WILCOX J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 1 JUNE 1988

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Costs in the Notice of Motion filed 26 May 1988 be costs in the further hearing of the principal

proceeding.

2. Liberty be granted to any party to apply on 24 hours'

notice.

AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

A. The respondents' affidavits be filed and served not later than Friday 15 July 1988.

B. Any affidavits in reply be filed and served not later than Priday 5 August 1988.

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

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NSW G.211 of 1985 )

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: COLLINS MARRICKVILLE PTY LIMITED

Applicant

AND: KENJO INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

- First Respondent HENRY SAADE Second Respondent NORMAN PETER GEORGE Third Respondent

SAADE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

CORAM: WILCOX J

PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 1 JUNE 1988

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

A Notice of Motion has been filed in this matter in order to clarify, in advance of the further hearing on damages, the nature of the evidence which may be adduced on behalf of the parties. The matter comes back to the Court pursuant to an order made by a Full Court on 26 February 1988 whereby certain orders made by me were set aside, those orders being intended to effect a reversion of the title of the business from the applicant to the first respondent. The Full Court took the view that, in consequence of its order, there ought to be further consideration by me as to the amount of damages. Lockhart J, at p.41, of his judgment said this in relation to the further hearing: