Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Napiat Pty Ltd v Salfinger; In the Matter of Salfinger (No 2) [2011] FCA 1271 Citation: Napiat Pty Ltd v Salfinger; In the Matter of Salfinger (No 2) [2011] FCA 1271
Parties: NAPIAT PTY LTD v RODERICK NEIL SALFINGER; IN THE MATTER OF SALFINGER
File number: NSD 476 of 2011
Judge: FOSTER J
Date of judgment: 4 November 2011
Date of hearing: 4 November 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr AP Cheshire
Solicitor for the Applicant: Gye Associates Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 476 of 2011
IN THE MATTER OF RODERICK NEIL SALFINGER BETWEEN: NAPIAT PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: RODERICK NEIL SALFINGER
Respondent
JUDGE: FOSTER J DATE OF ORDER: 4 NOVEMBER 2011 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent on 3 November 2011 be dismissed. 2. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to that Interlocutory Application on an indemnity basis. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 476 of 2011
IN THE MATTER OF RODERICK NEIL SALFINGER BETWEEN: NAPIAT PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: RODERICK NEIL SALFINGER
Respondent
JUDGE: FOSTER J DATE: 4 NOVEMBER 2011 PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Yesterday at approximately 1.30 pm, an attempt was made by lawyers for the respondent to file in the Sydney Registry of the Court an Interlocutory Application by which the respondent seeks an order that evidence be taken, or submissions be made, by audio link, or audiovisual link from Canada. 2 This matter is fixed for final hearing on Tuesday, 8 November 2011. For that reason, I gave leave to the respondent to file that Interlocutory Application and fixed it for hearing at 4.15 pm today. My Associate informed the parties of that listing by email sent at 3.07 pm yesterday. When the matter was called on at 4.15 pm today, there was no appearance either by or on behalf of the respondent. Counsel for the applicant is present in Court instructed by his instructing solicitor. 3 The respondent's application to have his evidence taken by audio link or by audiovisual link should have been made long before yesterday. The affidavits which he filed in support of that application raised grounds and matters about which he has known for some considerable time. That is not to say that I consider that any of the matters raised would justify the orders sought. Nonetheless, the application was not made until yesterday—two and a half working days before the hearing. 4 In those circumstances, and given that the legal representatives of the respondent have not attended at Court today, I propose to dismiss the Interlocutory Application that was filed yesterday with costs. I do so upon the basis that such costs are to be paid on an indemnity basis. 5 There will be orders accordingly. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Foster.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate