» IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: JUDGMENT No. LOS.) ) ) No. ACT G 29 of ) ) ) CADOROLL PTY LIMITED CALDPOST PTY LIMITED HAMERLEEN PTY LIMITED ALFRED NATHAN LESTER LESTER FIRTH ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED MADELINE MARIE LESTER Applicants ALLEGRA CORPORATION LIMITED First Respondent ALLEGRA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Second Respondent MAUNTILL PTY LIMITED Third Respondent PEGASUS LEASING LIMITED Fourth Respondent MICHAEL GEORGE SINCLAIR, MARUTA PEARSON and MICHAEL MARKO ZIVKOVIC trading as FARNHAM SINCLAIR & ASSOCIATES Fifth Respondents MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER DATE _OF ORDER WHERE MADE Neaves J. 23 December 1994 Canberra THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Note: The motion by the first and second respondents and the motion by the third and fourth respondents and the first named of the fifth respondents, notice of which was given on 28 November 1994, in so far as they seek orders dismissing or striking out the substantive application herein, be dismissed. The said motions, in so far as they seek orders as to the sufficiency or appropriateness of the second further amended statement of claim, be adjourned until 17 February 19935. The parties to the substantive application herein be restrained until the hearing and determination of that application or until further order from taking any further step in the proceedings pending in the Supreme Court of South Australia numbered 822 of 1992, 2213 of 1992 and 2219 of 1992. The costs of and incidental to the proceedings in this Court on 2 and 8 December 1994 and this day be costs in the cause. Any party have liberty to apply on 7 days' notice. moa Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. + 1 ra iIN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) ) No. ACT G 29 of 1992 DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: CADOROLL PTY LIMITED CALDPOST PTY LIMITED HAMERLEEN PTY LIMITED ALFRED NATHAN LESTER LESTER FIRTH ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED MADELINE MARIE LESTER Applicants AND: ALLEGRA CORPORATION LIMITED First Respondent ALLEGRA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Second Respondent MAUNTILL PTY LIMITED Third Respondent PEGASUS LEASING LIMITED Fourth Respondent MICHAEL GEORGE SINCLAIR, MARUTA PEARSON and MICHAEL MARKO ZIVKOVIC trading as FARNHAM SINCLAIR & ASSOCIATES Fifth Respondents Neaves J. DATE: 23 December 1994 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Before the Court are three motions. There is a motion, notice of which was given on 28 November 1994, by the first and second respondents, Allegra Corporation Limited and Allegra Investments Limited. There is also a motion, notice 2. of which was given on the same date, by the third respondent, Mauntill Pty Limited, the fourth respondent, Pegasus Leasing Limited and the first named of the fifth respondents, Michael George Sinclair who, with Maruta Pearson and Michael Marko Zivkovic traded as Farnham Sinclair & Associates. Those motions seek orders that the substantive proceeding brought by the applicants be struck out or dismissed as an abuse of process or, alternatively, that the second further amended statement of claim of the applicants be struck out as not disclosing a cause of action or as having a tendency to cause embarrassment and to delay the trial of the action. The third motion is a motion by the applicants, notice of which was given on 2 December 1994, seeking an order that, pending final determination of the substantive proceeding in this Court, Pegasus Leasing Limited be restrained from taking any steps in certain proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The motions are made in a proceeding, numbered ACT G 29 of 1992, pending in this Court. That proceeding was commenced by application filed on 2 July 1992. It named 22 applicants, being 12 corporations and 10 individuals. Notices of discontinuance have since been filed by various of the applicants. In the result, there are now 6 applicants, being 4 corporations and 2 individuals. The remaining applicants are Cadoroll Pty Limited, Caldpost Pty Limited, Hamerleen Pty 3. Limited, Alfred Nathan Lester, Lester Firth Associates Pty Limited and Madeline Marie Lester. The motions before the Court raise issues similar to those raised by the motions in the proceeding in this Court numbered ACT G 18 of 1992 and on which judgment has been given this day. For reasons similar to those set out in that judgment, I am of opinion that the substantive proceeding should continue in this Court and that all parties should be restrained, until the hearing and determination of the proceeding pending in this Court or until further order, from taking any further step in the related proceedings pending in the Supreme Court of South Australia, being the proceedings in that Court numbered 822 of 1992, 2213 of 1992 and 2219 of 1992 and I so order. Liberty is reserved to any party to apply on 7 days' notice. The motion by the first and second respondents and the motion by the third and fourth respondents and the first named of the fifth respondents, notice of which was given on 28 November 1994, in so far as they seek orders dismissing or striking out the proceeding in this Court, are dismissed and, in so far as they seek orders as to the sufficiency or appropriateness of the second further amended statement of claim, are adjourned until 17 February 1995. 4. In all the circumstances, I think it appropriate to order that the costs of and incidental to the proceedings in this Court on 2 and 8 December 1994 and this day be costs in the cause. I certify that this and the preceding 3 pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Neayes H) 4) i dl Dated: 23 December 1994 Mr G.J. Richardson SC and Mr B.B. McClintock Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher Counsel for the applicants Solicitors for the applicants Counsel for the first and second respondents Solicitors for the first and second respondents Mr R.J. Arthur o Phillips Fox Counsel for the third respondent and the first named of the fifth respondents : Mr K.J. Crispin QC and Mr I.J. Nicol Solicitors for the third respondent and the first named of the fifth respondents Blake Dawson Waldron Counsel for the fourth respondent Mr R.C. Refshauge Solicitors for the fourth respondent Macphillamy Cummins & Gibson Dates of hearing 2, 8 December 1994 Date of judgment 23 December 1994