FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Carey v Freehills [2014] FCA 451 Citation: Carey v Freehills [2014] FCA 451 Appeal from: Carey v Freehills [2013] FCA 954 Parties: NORMAN PHILLIP CAREY AND OTHERS (AS PER THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) v FREEHILLS File number: VID 1350 of 2013 Judge: NORTH J Date of judgment: 28 April 2014 Date of hearing: 28 April 2014 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 16 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr A Schlicht Solicitor for the Appellant: Metaxas & Hager Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D A Klempfner Solicitor for the Respondent: Colin Biggers & Paisley IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 1350 of 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: NORMAN PHILLIP CAREY AND OTHERS (AS PER THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) Appellants AND: FREEHILLS Respondent JUDGE: NORTH J DATE OF ORDER: 28 APRIL 2014 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The time between the filing and the hearing of this application be abridged to allow for the hearing on this day. 2. Subject to order 3, the appeal is dismissed with costs. 3. The Appellants have leave to file an application, by 5 May 2014, supported by an affidavit, to set aside order 2. 4. The Appellants pay the Respondent's costs of the interlocutory application filed on 22 April 2014. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 1350 of 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: NORMAN PHILLIP CAREY AND OTHERS (AS PER THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) Appellants AND: FREEHILLS Respondent JUDGE: NORTH J DATE: 28 APRIL 2014 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 20 September 2013, Kenny J delivered judgment in Carey v Freehills [2013] FCA 954 against the appellants, the applicants at first instance. 2 On 1 April 2014, Marshall J made orders in these proceedings that the appellants provide security for costs in the sum of $148,000 by 17 April 2014, and in default, that the appeal be stayed. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 15 and 16 May 2014. The security was not paid. 3 The respondent now applies to have the appeal dismissed because security for costs ordered by the Court has not been provided by the appellants. The respondent also says that the appeal should be dismissed because the appellants have failed to comply with directions made by the Court, and for want of prosecution of the appeal. The respondent relies upon s 25(2B)(ba) and (bb)(i), and s 56(4) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth). 4 The basis for the application lies in four separate identified defaults. 5 First, the respondent says that under r 36.52 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the appellants were required either to apply to a Registrar of the Court for assistance to settle the indexes to Part A and/or Part B of the appeal book within seven days of the filing of the notice of appeal, or else to submit draft indexes. The appellants did not request assistance from the Registrar. The respondent also says that draft indexes were due to be prepared by 3 February 2014, but were not submitted until 14 March 2014. The respondent says that the draft indexes submitted were deficient and required amendment. 6 Second, the respondent says that the appellants were required in accordance with Practice Note APP2 to finalise the indexes to the appeal book by 7 April 2014, and this was not done. 7 Third, the appellants were required by 14 April 2014, in accordance with Practice Note APP2, to file an outline of submissions and a chronology. This was also not done. 8 Fourth, the respondent argued that the fourth, fifth, 10th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 20th and 25th appellants have been deregistered and are therefore not proper appellants in any event. The de-registrations all occurred after Kenny J delivered judgment. 9 The respondent's application was emailed to the solicitor for the appellants on Tuesday 22 April 2014. The email also sent an extensive affidavit which set out the basis upon which the application was made. At this time, the application had no return date. However, the return date of today, 28 April 2014, was obtained on the following day, Wednesday 23 April 2014, and the appellants were notified of the return date on that day. 10 In response to the respondent's application, the appellants seek an adjournment in order to put further material before the Court. It should be noted that the formal notification of the application on 23 April 2014 left only one business day for the appellants to respond. The respondent's application was short-served, and an abridgement of time is necessary if the matter is to be heard today. 11 Despite the short notice, the solicitor for the appellants has sworn an affidavit today in support of the application for adjournment, but also indicating in brief terms the basis upon which the appellants would resist the order sought for dismissal of the appeal. The essence is contained in [13] and [14] as follows: 13. On In [sic] order to put up the cash security as ordered by Justice Marshall the appellants have to utilise the interest of Earlmist Pty Ltd as first mortgagee of the Warwick Commercial Park – see Mr Carey's affidavits sworn herein on 27 and 31 March 2014. The receivers with whom Mr Carey has been in conflict since 2009 will have to be notified on the proposal to deal with the land and it is expected that they will seek to restrain the interest being so utilised. 14. The appellants have not yet sought that consent because they have been dealing with the matters above and other matters. The receivers are likely to oppose any use of the mortgagee's interest on the basis that they will probably dispute payment of the judgment debt in CIV 1094 of 2008. 12 It is noteworthy that the solicitor for the appellants has not addressed the reasons for the defaults in compliance with the steps necessary for the preparation of the appeal. But Mr Schlicht, who appeared as counsel for the appellants, contended that the periods of the defaults have not been gross or excessive. Nonetheless, the accumulation of the defaults, taken with the failure to pay security and the tenuous basis upon which it appears that the funds necessary for security could be raised by the appellants, suggests that there is not a genuine and real intention to prosecute the appeal on substantial grounds. 13 An appeal should not be dismissed lightly, but on the other hand, where the facts indicate a disinclination of the appellant to proceed with the appeal, that step should not be resisted. 14 The appellants did not contend that the deregistered appellants were proper appellants. The appeal should be dismissed against them, at least on the basis which is proposed below. In respect of the 16th appellant, North Sydney Development Pty Ltd ACN 107 037 838, the respondent asserted that it had been deregistered. It appears however, that the company has not been deregistered and is in external administration. Regardless, the appeal should be dismissed against it for the reasons explained above. 15 It is appropriate to grant the respondent an abridgement of time for the hearing of this application, given the facts presently outlined. However, it is not possible to say at this stage that the appellants do not have matters of substance to raise, although it appears doubtful that they do have matters of substance to raise. Justice is therefore best served by making an order that the appeal be dismissed, but also by giving the appellants the opportunity within a short period to apply to set aside this order on further material. 16 The appeal should be dismissed, but with leave granted to the appellants to apply to set that order aside. I certify that the preceding sixteen (16) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate: Dated: 7 May 2014 Schedule No: (P)VID1350/2013 Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Victoria Division: General Second Appellant: QUARTZ NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 008 859 103) Third Appellant: HECA NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 053 581 874) Fourth Appellant: ACEBID PTY LTD (ACN 074 566 046) Fifth Appellant: ANDRIANNI PTY LTD ACN (005 458 720) Fifth Appellant: WESTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 074 148 324) Sixth Appellant: ANN STREET BRISBANE PTY LTD (ACN 101 943 711) Seventh Appellant: BENNALONG HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 008 741 008) Eighth Appellant: DOSIUS PTY LTD (ACN 009 449 450) Ninth Appellant: EARLMIST PTY LTD (ACN 069 056 926) Tenth Appellant: ETNAS PTY LTD (ACN 056 599 350) Eleventh Appellant: HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ACN 075 401 955) Twelfth Appellant: HUNTINGDALE VILLAGE PTY LTD (ACN 085 048 531) Thirteenth Appellant: JEVWOOD PTY LTD (ACN 074 525 321) Fourteenth Appellant: K.I.S REALTY PTY LTD (ACN 100 871 314) Fifteenth Appellant: KEEP IT SIMPLE INVESTMENTS (GLOBAL) PTY LTD (ACN 100 871 270) Sixteenth Appellant: NORTH SYDNEY DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD (ACN 107 037 838) Seventeenth Appellant: PAQUERO PTY LTD (ACN 003 540 556) Eighteenth Appellant: PARAGON APARTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 087 200 413) Nineteenth Appellant: RENAISSANCE MEZZANINE PTY LTD (ACN 110 978 491) Twentieth Appellant: ROMPRIDE PTY LTD (ACN 074 524 824) Twenty First Appellant: SCOTS CHURCH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (ACN 091 686 323) Twenty Second Appellant: SILKCHIME PTY LTD (ACN 066 358 276) Twenty Third Appellant: VANNIN PTY LTD (ACN 067 610 271) Twenty Fourth Appellant: WARWICK ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PTY LTD Twenty Sixth Appellant: WESTPOINT MANAGEMENT (CENTREWAYS) PTY LTD (ACN 082 349 068)