Brookfield v Yevad Products Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 876

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Brookfield v Yevad Products Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 876 IAN WALTER BROOKFIELD & SEPTIC PRODUCTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQ) v YEVAD PRODUCTS PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAVEY PRODUCTS PTY LTD) ACN 004 813 192 SG 112 OF 1993 MANSFIELD J 15 AUGUST 2003 ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SG 112 OF 1993

BETWEEN: IAN WALTER BROOKFIELD & SEPTIC PRODUCTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQ)

APPLICANTS

AND: YEVAD PRODUCTS PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAVEY PRODUCTS PTY LTD) ACN 004 813 192

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER: 15 AUGUST 2003

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The orders sought by the applicants' motion dated 11 August 2003 be refused. 2. Costs of the applicants' motion dated 11 August 2003 be the respondent's costs in the cause. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SG 112 OF 1993

BETWEEN: IAN WALTER BROOKFIELD & SEPTIC PRODUCTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQ)

APPLICANTS

AND: YEVAD PRODUCTS PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAVEY PRODUCTS PTY LTD) ACN 004 813 192

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE: 15 AUGUST 2003

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The application is listed for hearing commencing on 4 September 2003. In accordance with directions, the completion of the process of filing and serving proposed evidence has recently been completed. 2 In the light of it, the applicants by motion dated 11 August 2003 have sought two orders. As they were explained today by Mr Brookfield, appearing in person, they are firstly, an order for summary judgment setting aside the judgments of Branson J of 8 February 1996 and on costs on 19 December 1997 (and I add, by inference, the Full Court decision). It would follow, if that order were granted, that there would be a need to address the applicants' claim in the principal proceedings which were the subject of those judgments and to determine what, if any, entitlement the applicants had to damages against the respondent. The second order which is sought is an order directing the respondent to file further evidence to explain, or to better explain, the source of documents which the applicants assert have only been discovered since the hearing before Branson J and to explain, or better explain, why those documents were not discovered in a timely manner during the pre-trial procedures before the initial hearing.