Australian Securities Commission v Solomon

[1996] FCA 850

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G3469 of 1994

GENERAL DIVISION )

On Appeal from a Single Judge of the Federal Court of

Australia

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN	SECURITIES
COMMISSION

Applicant

AND: EMAD KAMEL SOLOMON

First Respondent

AND:

TRANSPHERE (SOUTH PACIFIC)

PTY. LIMITED

Second Respondent

AND:

THE EDDIE SOLOMON EMPORIUM

PTY. LIMITED

Third Respondent

AND: HOT CAKES PTY. LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

CORAM: Jenkinson, O'Loughlin and Sackville JJ.

PLACE: Sydney

DATE: 17 September, 1996

CORRIGENDA

1. On Minutes of Order and First Page of Judgment: delete No. G3469 of 1994 and substitute No. NG206 of 1996.

W.M.J. Hardman

Associate to Justice Jenkinson

Date: 22 November, 1996

- 2 -

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G3469 of 1994

GENERAL DIVISION )

On Appeal from a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION

Applicant

AND:EMAD KAMEL SOLOMON

First Respondent

AND:TRANSPHERE (SOUTH PACIFIC) PTY. LIMITED

Second Respondent

AND:THE EDDIE SOLOMON EMPORIUM PTY. LIMITED

Third Respondent

AND:HOT CAKES PTY. LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

CORAM: Jenkinson, O'Loughlin and Sackville JJ.

PLACE: Sydney

DATE: 17 September, 1996

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondents' application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant's costs of the said application be paid by the

respondents.

(Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36

of the Federal Court Rules.)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G3469 of 1994

GENERAL DIVISION )

- 2 -

On Appeal from a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION

Applicant

AND:EMAD KAMEL SOLOMON

First Respondent

AND:TRANSPHERE (SOUTH PACIFIC) PTY. LIMITED

Second Respondent

AND:THE EDDIE SOLOMON EMPORIUM PTY. LIMITED

Third Respondent

AND:HOT CAKES PTY. LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

CORAM: Jenkinson, O'Loughlin and Sackville JJ.

PLACE: Sydney

DATE: 17 September, 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JENKINSON J: The court has given careful consideration to the

submissions by Mr. Solomon on behalf of himself and the other respondents, both the submissions in writing and all the material at the back of the appeal book and also what Mr. Solomon has said today. But the court is unable to find any basis for thinking that there might be any error in the decision

of Tamberlin J. He was provided with a report to which the law gives prima facie evidentiary value. The salient statements in the report were not contradicted. Indeed, as we understand,

- 3 -

there was not even cross-examination on any of the salient points. The learned judge had really no course that he could have taken but the course which he did take. Because we

consider that there is no prospect of an appeal succeeding we have formed the view that the appropriate course to take is to

refuse leave to appeal from what is confessedly an interlocutory

order.

O'LOUGHLIN J: I agree with what the presiding judge has said.

There is nothing further I would wish to add.

SACKVILLE J: I also agree with the observations of the learned

presiding judge.

JENKINSON J: The order of the court will be that the

application for leave to appeal be dismissed. It is ordered that the applicant's costs of the application be paid by the respondents.

I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Court.

Associate

Dated: 17 September, 1996

- 4 -