FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Brandenburg v Austral Dutch Kaolin Limited [2024] FCA 1311
File number: QUD 98 of 2023 Judgment of: DERRINGTON J Date of judgment: 9 October 2024 Date of publication of reasons: 13 November 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for judgment in default – plaintiffs having failed to comply with directions to file evidence – lengthy period of delay – inference that the delay was caused by attempts to settle proceedings – application refused Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Lenijamar Pty Ltd v AGC (Advances) Limited (1990) 27 FCR 388
Professional Administration Service Centres Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2012) 295 ALR 52
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 38 Date of hearing: 9 October 2024 Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Mr D Keane KC with Mr R Tooth Solicitor for the Plaintiffs: Lillas & Loel Lawyers Counsel for the First Defendant: The First Defendant did not appear Counsel for the Second to Fifth Defendants: Mr R Cameron Solicitor for the Second to Fifth Defendants: Colville Johnstone Lawyers ORDERS
QUD 98 of 2023 BETWEEN: PAUL JAMES BRANDENBURG
First Plaintiff
SYDNEY WILLIAM HAYES
Second Plaintiff
SYDNEY WILLIAM HAYES AND PRUDENCE FIRTH AS TRUSTEES (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Plaintiff
AND: AUSTRAL DUTCH KAOLIN LIMITED ACN 097 469 139
First Defendant
GREGORY PATRICK EDWIN HANNAN
Second Defendant
HOP2IT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD ACN 632 727 112 (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Defendant
ORDER MADE BY:
DERRINGTON J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 OCTOBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The second to fifth defendants’ application filed on 1 October 2024 be dismissed.
2.The plaintiffs pay the second to fifth defendants’ costs of the application filed on 1 October 2024, to be taxed and paid forthwith.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DERRINGTON J:
Introduction
By an interlocutory application dated 27 September 2024 and accepted for filing on 1 October 2024, the second to fifth defendants seek orders dismissing the proceedings against them pursuant to r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) or alternatively s 37P(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Federal Court Act). For convenience, the second to fifth defendants will be referred to simply as “the defendants” in these reasons.
The fulcrum of the defendants’ application is the plaintiffs’ alleged non-compliance with orders made by this Court on 18 August 2023, particularly ones requiring them to file and serve their evidence in chief by 17 October 2023, and requiring the proceedings to be mediated before a Registrar of this Court on a date after 14 November 2023 but no later than 30 November 2023. Orders had also been made for the provision of discovery by the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Brandenburg v Austral Dutch Kaolin Limited and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] FCA 1311
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's delay was justified and whether the defendants were entitled to judgment in default. The primary issue was whether the plaintiff's failure to file evidence was due to attempts to settle, which could explain the delay. The court also considered whether the delay was unreasonable and if the defendants had suffered any prejudice. The court had to weigh the circumstances of the case and the impact of the delay on the defendants.
The court found that the delay was likely due to settlement attempts but was still unreasonable. The plaintiff had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the defendants had suffered prejudice. The court noted that the delay was lengthy and had caused inconvenience to the defendants. The court held that the application for judgment in default was not warranted and dismissed the application. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the application.
The court dismissed the application for judgment in default and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the application. The court held that the plaintiff's delay in filing evidence was unreasonable, despite the likely attempts to settle. The order was made under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which deals with the entry of orders. The dismissal of the application meant that the proceedings would continue, and the plaintiff was required to comply with the court's directions to file evidence.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The second to fifth defendants’ application filed on 1 October 2024 be dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs pay the second to fifth defendants’ costs of the application filed on 1 October 2024, to be taxed and paid forthwith.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.