Gillford Pty Ltd & Ors & Burdon Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 1189

!37_,

JUDGMENT NO. ...lstercecssseeeel sssssseeeess

TH EDERA OURT. UST. A ) ) s § DIS s ) No. NG 3670 of 1994 ) omen ) f fe BETWEEN: G F PTY T & O €8 JUL 1999 Applicant a WCURT OF STRALIA AND: URDO T (e) Pe CIPaAL REGISTRY Respondent

13 FEBRUARY 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LOCK J.

The parties Gillford Pty Limited and Burdon Pty Limited, and certain of their respective directors and officers, are in dispute about various matters that originally went back to negotiations for alleged franchise arrangements. Proceedings were instituted alleging misconduct and misrepresentations in relation to these franchise arrangements and in relation to the negotiations leading up to them. In the result, however, mediation procedures were adopted for the issues raised in these first Federal Court proceedings, that is matter number

ACTG 118 of 1993.

Then the applicants in proceeding ACTG 79 of 1994 brought separate sets of proceedings. They alleged misrepresentations and other misconduct on behalf of the respondents arising out of the representations and other matters said to have been made and to have occurred with respect to the mediation

proceedings and the subsequent settlement agreements that were

entered into between the parties. That was the position until late last year when, it is said by the applicants, there were discussions held on or about 22 December 1994. If the applicant's case is right, these discussions dispose of all the litigation between the parties for all practical purposes because, so it is alleged, the four people concerned, Mr Hannaford, Mr Gilbert, Mr Kent and Mr White agreed in effect

to resolve the disputes outstanding between them.

The making of the agreement and the effects of it as contended by the applicants appear to be denied by the respondents. I say "appear to be" because as yet I have not seen evidence from the respondents, but I have seen certain evidence by affidavit from certain of the applicants. The question that has arisen for determination today is what should be done to determine, on a final basis, the questions raised by those discussions held in late December 1994. It would seem that they should be determined as discrete issues and there appears to be no dispute about that - the parties have agreed that those issues should be the subject of amended