RAYBOS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v JONES RAJSKI v CARSON RAYBOS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v TECTRAN CORPORATION PTY LTD RAJSKI v COWPER RAYBOS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v CARSON RAJSKI v CARSON RAJSKI v TECTRAN CORPORATION PTY LIMITED [1989] NSWCA 173

RAYBOS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v JONES; RAJSKI vy CARSON; RAYBOS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD vy TECTRAN CORPORATION PTY LTD; RAJSKI y COWPER; RAYBOS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v CARSON; RAJSKI vy TECTRAN CORPORATION PTY LIMITED

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

Hope JA 17 April 1989

[1989] NSWCA 173

Hope JA The Court has before it seven proceedings involving Dr Rajski and/or Raybos Australia Pty Limited on the one hand and a number of opponents, including Mr Carson, Tectran Corporation, Mr Cowper, Mr Jones and Mr Hill. In most although not all of these proceedings there are outstanding interlocutory applications which have to be dealt with before the proceedings are heard. The proceedings are proceedings for contempt.

There are associated civil proceedings involving Dr Rajski and/or Raybos Australia Pty Limited and a number of defendants including Tectran Corporation Pty Limited. All these proceedings have had a very unhappy procedural course and, although they were started some years ago, they are still not ready to be heard.

An application has been made by Mr Johnson, who appears by leave for Dr Rajski, that a date be set down in June of this year to hear presumably, in the first place, the interlocutory proceedings, and possibly also the contempt proceedings. This course is opposed by the representatives of the other parties who seek to have the matter stood over until after the hearing of interlocutory applications in the civil matters in the Common Law Division of the court which are set down for hearing on 1 November 1989.

This court has previously held in relation to a number of these matters that the contempt proceedings will not proceed until the civil proceedings have been determined, subject to a monitoring of those civil proceedings. Having regard to the course of events in the past, the earlier decisions of this court, and the circumstances that now exist, I consider that the proper course to take is to adjourn all the proceedings to a date in December for mention, to monitor then the progress of the civil proceedings, and to determine what course shall be taken.