Makucha v Brian Tucker & Associates Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 250

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Makucha v Brian Tucker & Associates Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 250

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application for stay – whether permanent or interlocutory stay is more appropriate – where applicant had failed to put on evidence – where applicant was awaiting advice of senior counsel.

PAUL MAKUCHA AND NOTHINTOOHARD PTY LIMITED V BRIAN TUCKER & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED, BRIAN TUCKER, NEPEAN ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED, LEAN & HAYWARD PTY LIMITED AND PHILIP HAYWARD

NO. N 869 OF 2002

BEAUMONT J

19 MARCH 2003

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 869 OF 2002

BETWEEN: PAUL MAKUCHA

FIRST APPLICANT

NOTHINTOOHARD PTY LIMITED

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: BRIAN TUCKER & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED

FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAN TUCKER

SECOND RESPONDENT

NEPEAN ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED

THIRD RESPONDENT

LEAN & HAYWARD PTY LIMITED

FOURTH RESPONDENT

PHILIP HAYWARD

FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BEAUMONT J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 MARCH 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. An interlocutory order staying the proceedings until further order be granted with liberty to apply to vary or discharge the stay upon seven days notice. 2. The applicants pay the costs of the respondents of the proceedings to date.

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 869 OF 2002

BETWEEN: PAUL MAKUCHA

FIRST APPLICANT

NOTHINTOOHARD PTY LIMITED

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: BRIAN TUCKER & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED

FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAN TUCKER