Pitney Bowes Inc v Robinson [2000] FCA 863

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pitney Bowes Inc v Robertson [2000] FCA 863 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to set aside orders made in default of appearance – Issue whether applicant on motion had notice of proceeding before orders made – Question as to identity of person running a registered firm. PITNEY BOWES INC and PITNEY BOWES AUSTRALIA PTY v BOB ROBERTSON aka ROBERT SAMUEL ROBERTSON aka ELIAS KHURY trading as PITNEY MAILING SERVICES and MAHMOUD HOMSI trading as PITNEY MAILING SERVICES NG75 of 1998 WILCOX J SYDNEY 22 JUNE 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG75 of 1998

BETWEEN: PITNEY BOWES INC

First Applicant

And

PITNEY BOWES AUSTRALIA PTY

Second Applicant

AND: BOB ROBERTSON aka ROBERT SAMUEL ROBERTSON aka ELIAS KHURY trading as PITNEY MAILING SERVICES

First Respondent

And

MAHMOUD HOMSI trading as PITNEY MAILING SERVICES

Second Respondent

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 JUNE 2000

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Notice of Motion dated 20 April 2000 be dismissed. 2. The applicant on the motion, Robert Samuel Robertson, pay the costs of the motion incurred by the respondents to the motion, Pitney Bowes Inc and Pitney Bowes Australia Pty. Those costs may be taxed forthwith. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG75 of 1998

BETWEEN: PITNEY BOWES INC

First Applicant

And

PITNEY BOWES AUSTRALIA PTY

Second Applicant

AND: BOB ROBERTSON aka ROBERT SAMUEL ROBERTSON aka ELIAS KHURY trading as PITNEY MAILING SERVICES