Ausmedic Australia Pty Limited v Whiteley Medical Supplies Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1270

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ausmedic Australia Pty Limited v Whiteley Medical Supplies Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1270 Hearing dates: 16/10/2012 Decision date: 24 October 2012 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Lindsay J Decision: Application for trial of separate question refused. Solicitors restrained from acting for the defendants. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - miscellaneous procedural matters - other matters - separate question. PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - lawyers - other matters - restraint from acting -defendants' solicitors had a history of acting for plaintiff, including in relation to takeovers - whether defendants' solicitors should be restrained from acting for the plaintiff. Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW). Cases Cited: Wentworth v De Montfort (1988) 15 NSWLR 348 Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (a firm) [1991] 2 AC 222 at 234-237 Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561 at 582-583 [76] Newman v Phillips Fox (1999) 21 WAR 309 at 314-315 Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 at 251-252. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ausmedic Australia Pty Limited Whiteley Medical Supplies Pty Limited Representation: JC Giles J Stoljar SC Corrs Chambers Westgarth Somerville Legal Solicitors File Number(s): 2012 / 195861

Judgment

INTRODUCTION 1The proceedings before the Court were commenced by summons on 22 June 2012. 2On 3 July 2012, at the same time as the parties exchanged interlocutory undertakings, the Court made an order for the proceedings to continue on pleadings. 3All parties failed to comply with the timetable for the filing of pleadings. The plaintiff filed its statement of claim on 14 August 2012. The defendants - all of them - filed their defences on 15 October 2012. The defences are not expressed, uniformly, in the same terms. 4At the time of the hearing of motions before the Court, the plaintiff had not yet decided whether it would file any replies to the defences, but its preliminary assessment was that, if it did, there would be no necessity for elaborate replies. 5It cannot be said, on any view, that the pleadings have closed. 6This judgment addresses two notices of motion filed by the plaintiff. The first (filed on 21 August 2012) seeks an order for the trial of a separate question pursuant to rule 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The second (filed on 4 September 2012) seeks an injunction and, ancillary orders, to restrain the solicitors on the record for the defendants from continuing to act for them in these proceedings.