Re Australian Innovation Ltd & Ors Petrovsky, Kathleen & Ors v Petrovsky, Alexander & Ors [1996] FCA 479

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 3756 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION RE : AUSTRALIAN INNOVATION LIMITED and OTHERS (ACN 002 679 469) B E T W E E N : KATHLEEN PETROVSKY & OTHERS Applicants A N D: ALEXANDER PETROVSKY and OTHERS Respondents COURT: NORTHROP J DATE: 10 MAY 1996 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT There are two motions before the Court. The applicants are seeking an extension of time in which to comply with an order of the Court made on 25 March of this year. The respondents are seeking to have the proceeding dismissed, replying upon O 20 r 2 and O 10 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules. A reference to the history of this proceeding shows a discouraging picture of what can only be described as unsatisfactory procedures involving documents filed in Court pursuant to an application which on any view involves great difficulties as has been outlined by Mr Petrovsky in submissions made today. The proceeding needed skilled legal presentation in order to enable the Court to do justice according to law between the parties to it. This skilled legal presentation has not been given on the part of the applicants. The application was commenced on 15 December 1995 involving a dispute between three of the shareholders of a company, Australian Innovation Limited, as to the management of that company. A record of the directions hearings which have been held in this proceeding and what occurred at those hearings illustrates the unsatisfactory nature of the formal documentation filed in Court. Eventually at a directions hearing held on 25 March 1996, following submissions, the parties agreed to consent orders being made. I stress the fact that these were consent orders in which the parties were all represented by a legal representative. Minutes of the consent orders as originally handed to the Court allowed certain times within which action was to be taken but the Court urged on the parties the need to have those times extended to allow further time for things to be done. This was accepted by the parties and incorporated in the order, but the order was still an order by consent. The fact that it was a consent order is of importance in a case where reliance is now being made on O 10 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules. The essence of the orders made, and it is a long order by consent, are that all the earlier proceedings should, in effect, be struck out in circumstances where one of the issues was whether there was a cause of action disclosed in the application, but that the applicants have leave to file and serve an amended application by a certain time.