Prentice v Stanton [2004] FCA 215

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Prentice v Stanton [2004] FCA 215 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – costs of motion for further discovery – discretion as to costs – no question of principle CORPORATIONS – action by liquidators against directors based on alleged insolvent trading – motion by director-defendants for further discovery – costs of motion – no question of principle.

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE & ANOR AS JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF SMART COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

(ACN 090 744 513) v MATTHEW JAMES STANTON & ORS

N 3038 of 2002 LINDGREN J 18 MARCH 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 3038 OF 2002

BETWEEN: MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE AND MARK JULIAN ROBINSON IN THEIR CAPACITY AS JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF SMART COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 090 744 513)

FIRST PLAINTIFF

SMART COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LIMITED

(IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 090 744 513)

SECOND PLAINTIFF

AND: MATTHEW JAMES STANTON

FIRST DEFENDANT

GEOFFREY JOHN BEDNAL

SECOND DEFENDANT

MICHAEL GARTH JONES

THIRD DEFENDANT

FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

MICHAEL GARTH JONES

FIRST CROSS-CLAIMANT

MATTHEW JAMES STANTON

FIRST CROSS-DEFENDANT TO FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

GEOFFREY JOHN BEDNAL

SECOND CROSS-DEFENDANT TO FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

PETER JOHN MORRIS

THIRD CROSS-DEFENDANT TO FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

GERARDO D'ANGELO

FOURTH CROSS-DEFENDANT TO FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

CAROL HOLLEY

FIFTH CROSS-DEFENDANT TO FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

SECOND CROSS-CLAIM

MATTHEW JAMES STANTON

SECOND CROSS-CLAIMANT

MICHAEL GARTH JONES

FIRST CROSS-DEFENDANT TO SECOND CROSS-CLAIM