Cadoroll Pty Ltd v Allegra Corporation Ltd

[1994] FCA 4

't 94-

JUDGMENT No. ........ ........ .. I ........ ..,.

TN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
\
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
) No. ACT G 29 of 1992
DISTRICT REGISTRY	)
j
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:

Applicants

AND: ALLEGRA CORPORATION LIMITED

First Respondent

ALLEGRA INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Second Respondent

MAUNTILL PTY LIMITED

AUSTRALIA PRINClPAL REGISTRV

Third Respondent

PEGASUS LEASING LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

MICHAEL GEORGE SINCLAIR, MARUTA PEARSON and MICHAEL MARK0 ZIVKOVIC trading as FARNHAM SINCLAIR & ASSOCIATES

Fifth Respondents

RECEIVED

2 4 JAN 1994

FEDERAL COURT OF

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J.
DATE OF ORDER	17 January 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The motion notice of which was filed on 4 January 1994 be dismissed.

2.   The applicants pay the costs of Pegasus Leasing Limited of and incidental to the motion.

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

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
\
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	j No. ACT G 29 of 1992
DISTRICT REGISTRY	)
GENERAL DIVISION	j

BETWEEN: CADOROLL PTY LIMITED, ROENTGEN PTY LIMITED, SOUTHERN PLUMBING SUPPLIES PTY LIMITED. BALESCOPE PTY LIMITED, WILLIAM BRIAN LOFTUS, SRIDOT PTY

HILLTRATE PTY LIMITED. MODOC PTY - LIMITED, KENNETH JAMES CALLAUGHAN, ROY WILLIAM ELLIS, BRIAN DAVID BACKHOUSE, RIDGE CONSOLIDATED PTY LIMITED, PETER ROBERT HENRY and MADELINE MARIE LESTER

Applicants

AND: ALLEGRA CORPORATION LIMITED

First Respondent

ALLEGRA INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Second Respondent

MAUNTILL PTY LIMITED

Third Respondent

PEGASUS LEASING LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

MICHAEL GEORGE SINCLAIR. MARUTA PEARSON and MICHAEL MARK0 ZIVKOVIC trading as FARNHAM SINCLAIR & ASSOCIATES

Fifth Respondents

C O W : Neaves J.

m:  17 January 1994

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Before the Court is a motion, notice of which was filed on 4 January 1994, for an order restraining Pegasus Leasing Limited from tak~ng any steps, including the entry of default judgment, in certain proceedings instituted at the suit of that company in the Supreme Court of South Australia, the District Court of Adelaide and the Local Court of Adelaide (now the Magistrates Court of Adelaide). The motion is made in a proceeding, numbered ACT G 29 of 1992, pending in this Court.

The issues raised by the motion are similar to those raised in the motion made in the proceeding numbered ACT G 18 of 1992 pending in this Court and in relation to which judgment has been given this day.

For the reasons advanced in that judgment, the motion is dismissed. The applicant must pay the costs of

Pegasus Leasing Limited of and incidental to the motion.

I certify that this and the

preceding page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Mr Justice Neaves .

Associate

Dated: 17 January 1994

Counsel for the applicants : Mr B.R. McClintock

Solicitors for the applicants : Minter Ellison Morris

Fletcher

Counsel for Pegasus Leasing

Limited : Mr R.C. Refshauge

Solicitors for Pegasus Leasing

Limited : Macphillamy Cummins & Gibson

Date of hearing : 7 January 1994