Rajski and Raybos Australia Ltd v Carson and Tectran Corporation [2002] NSWCA 51

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Rajski and Raybos Australia Ltd v Carson and Tectran Corporation [2002] NSWCA 51 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 452/85; 369/86; 260/87; 602/87 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 July, 18 September 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 11 March 2002

PARTIES : Leszek Rajski and Raybos Australia Ltd (Appellants) Nicholas Roderick Carson and Tectran Corporation (Respondents) JUDGMENT OF : Stein JA; Young CJ in Eq; Brownie AJA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT 452/85; 369/86; 260/87; 602/87 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Registrar Irwin JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Appellant in person P L G Brereton SC (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Atanaskovic Hartnell (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : Review of Registrar's decision that motions for contempt proceed. These motions had lain dormant pending hearing of principal action in accordance with rulings of the Court in 1988. The principal proceedings had not come on for hearing, indeed the appellant said they had been settled. The Registrar held that the motions should now proceed. The appellant submitted that the Registrar had, in effect, overruled a three Judge court and that the motions should await the outcome of an equity suit to enforce the settlement. Held that the Registrar's decision should be upheld. Further that the motions should be heard by a single Judge in the Common Law Division. (ND) Douglas v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 126 CASES CITED: Rajski v Bainton (C/A 12.11.1991) Rajski v Wood (C/A 3.2.1992) Wilkshire v Commonwealth (1976) 9 ALR 325 DECISION : Application to review Registrar's decision dismissed with costs. Remit the contempt applications, including Mr Carson's motions to dismiss same to the Common Law Division for hearing with appropriate priority.