Cadoroll Pty Ltd v Allegra Corporation Ltd Summary

'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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Cadoroll Pty Ltd v Allegra Corporation Ltd, and others, was heard before Neaves J. The applicants, which include Cadoroll Pty Ltd, Roengten Pty Ltd, and other associated entities, sought to restrain Pegasus Leasing Limited from pursuing any further steps in proceedings they had commenced against the applicants in various courts. Pegasus Leasing Limited, along with other respondents, were defendants in the main proceeding numbered ACT G 29 of 1992. The court was tasked with deciding whether to grant the applicants' motion to restrain Pegasus Leasing Limited from proceeding with their claims.

The legal issues before the court centered on the applicants' request to halt Pegasus Leasing Limited's legal actions in other courts. The applicants argued that these actions should be stayed until the main proceeding in the Federal Court was resolved. The court needed to determine whether such a stay was warranted and if the applicants had a valid basis for seeking the restraint. The court referenced a previous judgment in another related motion, ACT G 18 of 1992, as the reasoning in that judgment was applicable to the current motion.

Neaves J dismissed the applicants' motion, following the reasoning from the earlier judgment. The court concluded that the applicants did not have sufficient grounds to restrain Pegasus Leasing Limited from continuing with their legal actions in other courts. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of Pegasus Leasing Limited associated with the motion. This decision was made on 17 January 1994, and the applicants' motion was dismissed as a result.

Cadoroll Pty Ltd v Allegra Corporation Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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