Pegasus Leasing Limited v Cadoroll Pty Limited [1996] FCA 64

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA _ ) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. ACT G44 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: PEGASUS LEASING LIMITED Appellant

AND:

CADOROLL PTY LIMITED CADOSHARE PTY LIMITED JAMES DOUGLAS BLAKE HAMERLEEN PTY LIMITED ALFRED NATHAN LESTER LESTER FIRTH ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED JOHN WILLIAM FIRTH WALTRAME PTY LIMITED ZANDRA JOY BLAKE

First Respondents

ALLEGRA CORPORATION LIMITED ALLEGRA INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Second Respondents

MAUNTILL PTY LIMITED MICHAEL GEORGE SINCLAIR MARUTA PEARSON and MICHAEL MARKO ZIVKOVIC trading as FARNHAM SINCLAIR & ASSOCIATES

Third Respondents

CORAM: LEE, HIGGINS and TAMBERLIN JJ PLACE: CANBERRA DATE: 20 FEBRUARY 1996

CORRIGENDUM

Amendment to the Reasons of Higgins J in the judgment delivered 20 February 1996:- Page 1, first sentence - change to read "I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Lee and Tamberlin JJ."

Megan Noble Associate to Higgins J

5 March 1996

CATCHWORDS JURISDICTION OF COURTS - parallel proceedings - cross-vesting legislation - refusal of South Australian Supreme Court to transfer proceedings under cross-vesting legislation - refusal of Federal Court to transfer proceedings - whether equitable

entitlement sufficient to warrant this court restraining exercise of legal right to continue proceedings in South

Australia - whether contrary to interests of justice for South Australian proceedings to continue - undesirability of parallel streams of litigation with substantially the same issues of fact and law - unnecessary and onerous burden on all parties - possibility of conflicting findings of fact or law - possible perception of inconsistency - foreseeable waste if resources, time and expense - manifest "mischief" of duplicative proceedings - all matters of controversy between parties to be completely and finally determined on merits - whether contrary