ANZ Funds Management Ltd v Coastaura Pty Ltd

[1990] FCA 780

1     No. NG161 of 1990

FEW SPUTH W A U S DISTR- 1

RAL DIVISIm 1

BETWEEN:  MANAGEMENT LIMITED

First Applicant

AND: m I A AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP

LIMITED

Second Applicant

AND:  PTY. L I M I W

First Respondent

AND :  POBERT JAMES CAMERON-SMITU

Second Respondent

AND :  Liuvmmx

Third Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	PINCUS J.
:	-	4 DECEMBER 1990
WHERE:	BRISBANE
m COURT ORDERS THAT:
N!Ym:	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

1.   Upon counsel for the first and second applicants reading the undertakings given to the Court on 5 April 1990 on behalf of the first and second respondents, there will be judgment for the first and second applicants against the first and second respondents in the sum of $10,686.75.

2.    The firet and second respondents pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed.

THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRAL14 1 No. NG161 of 1990

0	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN:  W & FUNDS MANAGEMENT LIMITED

First Applicant

AND: W I A AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING G R O U

LInITED

Second Applicant

AND: CWLSTAURA PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

AND: POBERT JAMES CAMERON-SMITH

Second Respondent

AND:  W N TAYLOq

Third Respondent

W: PINCUS J.

m:	BRISBANE
- 1	4 DECEMBER 1990

TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In these proceedings, the applicants claim relief only the first and second respondents. The solicitor for the	against three respondents, but the claim is pursued against	first and second respondents has withdrawn, having notified his clients of the trial.
The first and second respondents gave undertakings on 5 April 1990 which are recorded in the file and also in the transcript and have been read today by counsel for the applicants. I am informed by counsel for the applicants that

the applicante do not wish to pursue the claim, made in the application, for injunctive relief, but are content simply to rely upon the undertakings given on 5 April.

The only claim which is pursued today is one made by

amendment and that is for damages in the sum of $10,686.75.

Mr. Fraser argues and, it seems to me, correctly, that the sum

in question was expended in consequence of the illegalities which are alleged against the first and second reepondents. That appears from the affidavit of Mr. David Michael Davies, filed on 30 November 1990. That is, Mr. Davies' affidavit satisfies me that the money was spent to avert or lessen what were thought to be the bad effects of the first and second respondents' misuse of the name "AFT".

I therefore find that the first and second reepondents were guilty of misleading conduct as alleged and that the sum of $10,686.75 damages is the proper award to make in respect of that wrong. The order of the Court will be

that, upon counsel for the first and second applicants reading

the undertakings given to the Court on 5 April 1990 on behalf

of the first and second respondents, there will be judgment for the first and second applicants against the first and second respondents in the sum of $10,686.75.

It will also be ordered that the firat and second respondents pay the applicants1 costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be taxed.

I certify that the two preceding pages are a true copy of the reaeons for judgment herein of hie Honour Mr. Justice Pincue.