Aloridge P/L (Provisional Liquidator Appointed) v West Australian Gem Explorers P/L Aloridge P/L (Provisional Liquidator Appointed) v Christianos, G. Summary

670 7 3

JUDGMENT No. *........ ..,....., 1,,,,,

NOT SUITABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

)

GENERAL DIVISION

)	NG 3210 of 1993

IN THE MATTER OF: WEST AUSTRALIAN GEM EXPLORERS PTY
LIMITED

BETWEEN: ALORIDGE PTY LIMITED [PROVISIONAL
Applicant

AND: WEST AUSTRALIAN GEM EXPLORERS PTY
LIMITED
Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF: ALORIDGE PTY LIMITED (PROVISIONAL
LIOUIDATOR APPOINTEDL

BETWEEN: ALORIDGE PTY LIMITED /PROVISIONAL
LIOUIDATOR APPOINTED1
Applicant

AND : GEORGE CHRISTIANOS
First Respondent

REGISTRV
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MARIA CHRISTIANOS
Second Respondent

BERNARD PUTNIN

Third Respondent

CORAM: Burchett J.
PLACE: Sydney

DATE : 23 August 1993

2 3 SEP 1993
FEDERAL COURT L

AUSTRALIA
PRINCIPAL

BURCHETT J.:

In this hearing, two matters are before me at the moment; first, there is a contest as to whether three actions (these matters and number NG 3114 of 1993) should be heard together or but two of them, all parties being agreed that some degree of joint hearing is desirable; and secondly, whether the joint hearing, whether of two matters or three, should take place in Perth, and whether those matters should now be sent to the Perth registry.

I think these issues are very much bound up with each other, because if the action which is proposed to be excluded were excluded that would tend to affect the balance of convenience somewhat, although National Mutual Holdinqs Ptv Ltd v. The Sentrv Corworation (1988) 19 FCR 155 makes it clear that such a decision, that is, a decision on a transfer to another registry, is not made on a balance of convenience

all three of the matters should be heard together, unless in

alone. In my opinion, it is clear that it is desirable that

the course of preparation for hearing something emerges quite
different from the position as it presently appears.

It seems to me that the three matters are inextricably bound up in a common history and common matters of dispute and common questions of credit. That being so, I propose to give a direction, the form of which can be settled, but the effect of which will be to enable the matters to proceed on the assumption that there will be a joint hearing of the three actions, and not merely of two of them. At any rate at present, nothing has emerged to suggest any reason to transfer the registry, and accordingly, I dismiss the motion so far as it relates to a transfer of registry.

That will not prevent an application, as I indicated during argument, being raised at a later time, either for a transfer of the place of hearing, or for the hearing to be split ( e r between New South Wales and Western Australia); and I simply invite counsel to discuss that at a later stage, with a view to the most sensible arrangement being reached, if possible, without the cost and time of a contested motion. I t may turn out to be plainly best to leave it where it is, or plainly best to make some change. I do not pre-judge that. I dismiss the application, so far as it is for an order that two matters only be consolidated, and the only remaining question is what positive order I should make with a view to the end

preparation, to a joint hearing of the three matters. I will

which I have indicated of having the three matters proceed, in

simply, at this stage, order that the directions hearings proceed on the basis that, unless there is some further order affecting this, there will be in due course a joint hearing of the three matters.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages
are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein
of his Honour Mr Justice Burchett.

Associate: M'-&
Date: 22 septembe; 1993

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D.P.F. Officer Q.C.
with Mr D.L. Warren
Solicitors for the Applicant: Messrs N.G. Cassim &
Company
Counsel for the Respondent in
matter no. NG 3210 of 1993:
Solicitors for the Respondent Messrs Phillips Fox
in matter no. NG 3210 of 1993:
Counsel for the First and Mr M.P. Workman
Second Respondents in matter
no. NG 3216 of 1993:
Solicitors for the First and Messrs Pullinger
Second Respondents in matter Sanderson & Workman
no. NG 3216 of 1993:
Counsel for the Third Respondent Mr H.K. Insall
in matter no. NG 3216 of 1993:
Solicitor for the Third M r James Ride
Respondent in matter no.
NG 3216 of 1993:
Date of hearing: 23 August 1993

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Aloridge P/L (Provisional Liquidator Appointed) v West Australian Gem Explorers P/L and Aloridge P/L (Provisional Liquidator Appointed) v Christianos, G. was heard before Burchett J. The matter pertains to the consolidation and venue of three actions, NG 3210 of 1993, NG 3114 of 1993, and NG 3216 of 1993, involving Aloridge P/L as the applicant and West Australian Gem Explorers P/L, along with individuals George Christianos, Maria Christianos, and Bernard Putnin, as respondents. The applicant seeks to consolidate the three actions and determine the appropriate venue for the hearing.

The legal issues before the court included whether the three actions should be heard together and whether the venue should be transferred to Perth. The court considered the balance of convenience and the need for a joint hearing, given the common history and matters of dispute among the actions. Burchett J examined the desirability of a joint hearing and whether the decision to exclude one of the actions would affect the balance of convenience. The court also evaluated whether there were sufficient grounds to transfer the hearing to Perth, referencing the precedent set in National Mutual Holdings Ptv Ltd v. The Sentry Corporation.

In delivering his judgment, Burchett J concluded that all three actions should be heard together due to their common history and matters of dispute. The court rejected the motion to exclude one of the actions and to transfer the registry to Perth. Burchett J ordered that the directions hearings proceed on the assumption of a joint hearing of the three matters, leaving open the possibility of a future application for a change in venue or splitting the hearing. The court emphasized that any future changes should aim to achieve a sensible arrangement that minimizes costs and time.

The final orders of the court were that the three matters should proceed jointly, and any future applications regarding the venue or splitting of the hearing should be discussed to reach the most efficient outcome. The decision ensures that the matters are prepared and heard in a manner that best serves the interests of justice.

Aloridge P/L (Provisional Liquidator Appointed) v West Australian Gem Explorers P/L Aloridge P/L (Provisional Liquidator Appointed) v Christianos, G.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr D.P.F. Officer Q.C.
with Mr D.L. Warren
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Messrs N.G. Cassim & Company
Counsel for the Respondent in matter no. NG 3210 of 1993:
Solicitors for the Respondent	Messrs Phillips Fox
in matter no. NG 3210 of 1993:
Counsel for the First and	Mr M.P. Workman
Second Respondents in matter no. NG 3216 of 1993:
Solicitors for the First and	Messrs Pullinger
Second Respondents in matter	Sanderson & Workman
no. NG 3216 of 1993:
Counsel for the Third Respondent	Mr H.K. Insall
in matter no. NG 3216 of 1993:
Solicitor for the Third	*M r* James Ride
Respondent in matter no.
NG 3216 of 1993:
Date of hearing:	23 August 1993