Hamod v State of New South Wales [2001] FCA 1851

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hamod v State of New South Wales [2001] FCA 1851 ANTHONY HAMOD & ANOR v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR N 643 OF 2000 EMMETT J 21 SEPTEMBER 2001 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 643 OF 2000

BETWEEN: ANTHONY HAMOD

FIRST APPLICANT

HAMOCK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 005 758 412)

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

FIRST RESPONDENT

UBS AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 003 059 461)

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 SEPTEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application for abridging time for service be refused. 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 N 643 OF 2000

BETWEEN: ANTHONY HAMOD

FIRST APPLICANT

HAMOCK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 005 758 412)

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

FIRST RESPONDENT

UBS AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 003 059 461)

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 21 SEPTEMBER 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have an application before me, brought ex parte, for leave to abridge the time for service of a notice of motion seeking a number of orders in respect of proceedings under the management of Conti J. In the time available to me it has not been possible for me to consider the detail of the allegations made in the pleadings. In the proceeding, the applicants are Anthony Hamod and Hamock Investments Pty Limited. The respondents are the State of New South Wales and UBS Australia Limited. 2 Mr Hamod, in assertions from the bar table, referred to allegations dating from late 1994 concerning alleged attempts at bribery, wrongful seizure of property and papers, imprisonment, alleged malicious prosecution and other matters. This proceeding was commenced on 19 June 2000. The first return day for the applications was 27 July 2000. On 26 July 2000 the second respondent notified Mr Hamod of its intention to file a notice of motion seeking leave to strike out his statement of claim. 3 The second respondent filed a notice of motion seeking summary dismissal on 27 July 2001. That motion was heard on 2 August 2000, when Gyles J dismissed the notice of motion. On 31 August 2000 the first respondent filed a notice of motion to strike out the statement of claim. On 5 September 2000 Gyles J ordered that there are to be no further notices of motion without leave. It is alleged that on 15 September 2000 the second respondent wrote to Gyles J making allegations about the applicants, but no copy of the letters was furnished to the applicants. 4 On 6 November 2000 a further amended notice of motion was filed by the second respondent seeking orders that the current pleading be struck out and for security for costs. On 30 November 2000 a second further amended notice of motion was filed by the second respondent seeking orders that: 1. The proceedings be stayed until such time as there was common representation of the first and second applicants.