FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Rangott v Pilor Pty Limited [2006] FCA 800 WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT v PILOR PTY LIMITED, JANELLE ROCHE, PIA SERVICES PTY LTD, FAIRCHROME PTY LTD, MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LTD, MARK AND NOORAINI BLUMER, IPAQ PTY LTD, CRDT PTY LTD AND AAR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD QUD 137 of 2005 DOWSETT J 16 MARCH 2006 BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QUD 137 OF 2005 BETWEEN: WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT APPLICANT AND: PILOR PTY LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT JANELLE ROCHE SECOND RESPONDENT PIA SERVICES PTY LTD THIRD RESPONDENT FAIRCHROME PTY LTD FIFTH RESPONDENT MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LTD SIXTH RESPONDENT MARK & NOORAINI BLUMER SEVENTH RESPONDENT IPAQ PTY LTD EIGHTH RESPONDENT CRDT PTY LTD ELEVENTH RESPONDENT AAR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD TWELFTH RESPONDENT JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE: 16 MARCH 2006 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The conduct of this litigation on behalf of the applicant has been completely unsatisfactory. The problem has been an incremental one, and I have, from time to time, perhaps ill-advisedly, allowed indulgences to the applicant, and, to some extent, those indulgences have contributed to the present position. I do not understand why my orders made on 22 October 2005 and 10 January 2006 have not been complied with. It seems that the only explanation is either a total breakdown in communications between the client and his solicitors and/or total incompetence on the part of either the client or the solicitors or both. I suspect, too, that the whole matter has been complicated by the relationship between the petitioning creditor and the applicant. It would be impossible to ascertain the truth of the matter without a detailed hearing which, quite frankly, it does not deserve. The applicant is, in any event, not statute barred. Even if the proceedings were struck out, he would be able to commence new proceedings. 2 In those circumstances, I cannot justify a detailed inquiry as to the ins and outs of what has happened in this matter and who is responsible for what. I say that, keeping in mind the fact that to the extent that the respondents have been put to expense and otherwise inconvenienced by these matters, it will be possible to compensate them in costs. In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to extend time in which to deliver an amended application and an amended statement of claim until 4.00 pm on Friday, 17 March 2006. The applicant is to be at liberty to deliver an amended statement of claim and application only after he has made a substantial payment with respect to the costs of the proceedings. "Substantial costs" means the amounts of the orders for costs previously made which costs are payable forthwith. A mechanism should be put in place to facilitate the preparation of the bill in a taxable form and verifying it in a preliminary way, upon which there should be a substantial payment of such amounts as are not in dispute. 3 Any amounts that are in dispute should be paid into court to abide the outcome of the taxation proceedings. As to any other outstanding costs, I will dispose of them this afternoon. As presently inclined, I will order that they be paid forthwith. However it will unduly complicate the matter if they are included in the order with respect to the future delivery of pleadings. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate: Dated: 4 July 2006 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr G T Bigmore QC Solicitor for the Applicant: Dibbs Abbott Stillman Counsel for the First, Second & Third Respondents: Mr P Flanagan SC Solicitor for the First, Second & Third Respondents: Tucker & Cowen Solicitor for the Fifth, Eighth & Eleventh Respondents: James Conomos Lawyers Date of Hearing: 16 March 2006 Date of Judgment: 16 March 2006