Palm Springs Ltd v Darling [2002] FCA 277

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Palm Springs Ltd v Darling [2002] FCA 277 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to have proceedings dismissed – whether proceedings are an abuse of process – whether proceedings were instituted for the predominant purpose of enabling cross-vesting – whether claims are without foundation – approach taken by Court in determining purpose of instituting proceedings

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)s 8 Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) s 106 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting Act) 1987 (Cth) s 5 Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212 cited The Bell Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (2000) 104 FCR 305 referred to Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 followed In re Majory [1955] Ch. 600, cited Wood v Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd (unreported, NSW Supreme Court, McLelland CJ in Eq, 28 October 1993) refererd to ECC Lighting Ltd v McGurk (unreported, NSW Supreme Court, Santow J, 15 June 1995) referred to Ge v River Island Clothing Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 935 discussed BT Australasia Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales and Telstra Corporation Ltd (No 13) (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Sackville J, 29 September 1998) cited PALM SPRINGS LIMITED v MARK HAROLD DARLING N1396 OF 2001 TAMBERLIN J SYDNEY 19 MARCH 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1396 OF 2001

BETWEEN: PALM SPRINGS LIMITED

ACN 007 686 955

APPLICANT

AND: MARK HAROLD DARLING

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 MARCH 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The proceeding is dismissed as an abuse of process. 2. The respondent on the Notice of Motion shall pay the applicant's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.