Michael, S. & Anor v. Monitronix Ltd & Ors [1994] FCA 979

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: DATE OF ORDER: WHERE MADE:

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1. The applicants'

dismissed.

JUDGMENT NO. senod oat DH.

ee ee ee ee

No. WAG 126 of 1989

SHAWKY MICHAEL and JOYCE MARY MICHAEL

Applicants and MONITRONIX LIMITED

First Respondent BERNARD WILLIAM RIDGEWAY DAVID CHRISTOPHER NICOLSON GRAHAM CHARLES SYLVESTER

Second Respondents

MINUTE OF ORDER

CARR J. 13 DECEMBER 1994 PERTH

motion filed on 15 November 1994 be

2. The applicants pay the second respondents' costs (if any)

to be taxed.

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

15 DEC 1994

FEDERAL COURT OF

AUSTRALIA

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

'ran

s

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION No. WAG 126 of 1989 BETWEEN: SHAWKY MICHAEL and JOYCE

MARY MICHAEL

Applicants and MONITRONIX LIMITED

First Respondent BERNARD WILLIAM RIDGEWAY DAVID CHRISTOPHER NICOLSON GRAHAM CHARLES SYLVESTER

Second Respondents

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: CARR J.

DATE OF ORDER: 13 DECEMBER 1994 WHERE MADE: PERTH 33 ( FOR ORDER

This is the applicants' motion that a stay of proceedings

oxdered by French J. on 23 November 1989 be lifted.

In summary, in the proceedings filed in this Court the applicants seek damages and other relief in respect of employment contracts with the first respondent and for conduct of the first and second respondents which is said to have been misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). There are other claims said to have arisen out of the dealings between the applicants and the first and second respondents. French J. made the above order because similar claims (other than the claims under the Trade Practices Act) had been made