Mark Henry Skinner v Redmond Family Holdings Pty Limited [2017] NSWCA 237

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mark Henry Skinner v Redmond Family Holdings Pty Limited [2017] NSWCA 237 Hearing dates: 11 September 2017 Decision date: 11 September 2017 Before: Payne JA Decision: Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – case management hearing Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mark Henry Skinner (First Appellant) Patrick Charles Oliver Stone (Second Appellant) Redmond Family Holdings Pty Limited (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Foley (Appellants) J Pearson (Respondent)

Solicitors: Foleys Lawyers (Appellants) LAS – Lawyers and Consultants (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/00016215 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Equity – Corporations List Citation: [2016] NSWSC 796 Date of Decision: 16 June 2016 Before: Black J File Number(s): 2012/13331

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

EX TEMPORE Judgment [Amended in accordance with the principles in Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123 at [194]] 1. HIS HONOUR: This matter comes before me today for a case management hearing following a number of significant delays in the preparation of the matter for appeal. 2. The decision of the primary judge was delivered on 16 June 2016. His Honour invited the parties to bring in short minutes to give effect to that decision. Regrettably, the parties were not able to agree and his Honour was forced to write another lengthy judgment. 3. His Honour's final orders were made on 21 December 2016. The appellant filed a notice of intention to appeal on 17 January 2017 and the notice of appeal was filed on 21 March 2017. I note that Mr Stone, who was originally the second respondent, is now the second appellant to the appeal. 4. The matter has been before the Registrar of the Court on five previous occasions in May, June, July, August and September 2017. A Red Book was filed on 23 June 2017. On 9 August 2017, the appellants' written submissions were filed. At the hearing today, the appellants were represented by Mr Foley, solicitor, and the respondent was represented by Mr Pearson. The purpose of the hearing today was to consider making orders to bring this appeal before the Court as soon as reasonably practicable. 5. I heard submissions from the parties about why I should not make orders for the orderly preparation of the matter including: 1. filing the Black and Blue books, 2. filing the respondent's written submissions; 3. filing any submissions by the appellants in reply; 4. making an order setting the matter down for hearing in November 2017. 1. Mr Foley submitted that there were a number of issues which had prevented progress in the matter. 2. In particular, it was proposed by the appellants to attempt to lead further evidence on the appeal. Subpoenas had been issued by the appellants seeking information about the whereabouts of a number of people on 3 May 2011, which was submitted to be a critical date in the decision of the primary judge. It was submitted that the primary judge's findings about a meeting on that day were critical to the appellants' prospects on the appeal. 3. In addition, Mr Foley foreshadowed a potential motion seeking a stay of bankruptcy proceedings, which I was informed had been commenced against Mr Stone, the second appellant. Finally, it was submitted that a motion may be filed by the appellants in the event of a failure to comply with any of the subpoenas which have been issued. I note that none of those motions are before me today. Such motions may never be filed. 4. In relation to the proposed further evidence, Mr Foley made clear that that evidence is limited to the participants in and conduct of a meeting said to have occurred on 3 May 2011. The appellants did not identify why the evidence that is being sought by subpoena could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to the hearing before the primary judge.