BNY Australia Limited v C Itoh & Co Limited & Ors; Corumo Holdings Pty Limited & Ors v C Itoh & Co Limited

[1992] HCATrans 174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No SllB of 1991

B e t w e e n -

BNY AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Applicant

and

C. ITOH & CO LIMITED, SHIMIZU AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED,TISAREN HOLDINGS PTY

LIMITED.JC NO. 7 (AUSTRALIA)
PTY LIMITED, JC NO. 100
(AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, SC
PROPERTIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY
LIMITED, JC NO. 4 (AUSTRALIA)

PTY LIMITED

Respondents

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S119 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

CORUMO HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED,

TIPPERARY HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED,

WARREN PERRY ANDERSON and

NOVALIS HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED

Applicants

and

1 5/6/92

C. ITOH & CO LIMITED,
SHIMIZU AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED,

TISAREN HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED,

JC NO. 7 (AUSTRALIA) PTY

LIMITED, JC NO. 100 (AUSTRALIA)
PTY LIMITED, JC NO. 1
(AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED,
PINERO HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED,
SC PROPERTIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY
LIMITED, JC NO. 4 (AUSTRALIA)
PTY LIMITED and BNY AUSTRALIA

LIMITED

Respondents

For Mention

MASON CJ
TOOHEY J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 JUNE 1992, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR A.R. EMMETT, QC:  May it please Your Honours, in the

first matter I appear with my friend, MR P.M. WOOD,

for the applicant. In the second matter, I also

appear for the tenth respondent. (instructed by

Allen Allen & Hemsley)

MR T.F. BATHURST, QC: If the Court pleases, in the first

matter I appear with MR R.M. SMITH for the first, sixth, eighth and ninth respondents. (instructed
second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh
respondents. In the second matter I appear with

by Blake Dawson Waldron)

MR D. ROBINSON: If the Court pleases, I appear for the

app~icants in the second matter.	(instructed by
Freehill Hollingdale & Page)

MR EMMETT:  Your Honours, the proceedings have been settled.

Notices of discontinuance, I think, have already

been filed in the registry or are in the process of

being filed in the registry. Under Order 69A, the

Court is required to make an order if there is to

be no order as to costs. It is the joint

application of all parties that the Court direct
that there be no order as to the costs of the leave

application.

MASON CJ:  By consent there shall be no order as to the

costs of these applications.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

2   5/6/92