7 , 9 9
JUDGMENT NO. ..*sm.aa aaaawaa-
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) I 1
1 No. ACT G 27 of 1992 DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
Applicants
AND ALLEGRA CORPORATION LIMITED
First Respondent
ALLEGRA INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Second Respondent
Fifth Respondents MAUNTILL PTY LIMITED
RECEIVED Third Respondent FEDERAL COURT OF PEGASUS LEASING LIMITED AUSTRALIA
PRINCIPAL Fourth Respondent REQISTRY MICHAEL GEORGE SINCLAIR. MARUTA PEARSON and MICHAEL MARK0 ZIVKOVIC trading as FARNHAM SINCLAIR & ASSOCIATES
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 )
\ No. ACT G 27 of 1992 DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
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
CORAM: Neaves J.
DATE: 17 January 1994
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Before the Court 1s a motion, notice of which was filed on 4 January 1994, for an order restraining Pegasus Leasing Limited from taking 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 27 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
Pletcher
Counsel for Pegasus Leasing
Limited : Mr R.C. Refshauge
Solicitors for Pegasus Leasing
Limited : Macphillamy Cummins & Gibson Date of hearing : 7 January 1994
- AGLC
- Cadoroll Pty Lts v Allegra Corporation Ltd [1994] FCA 7
- Case
- [1994] FCA 7
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the arguments and reasons given in a similar motion in another proceeding, numbered ACT G 18 of 1992. For the reasons stated in the earlier judgment, the court dismissed the motion. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of Pegasus Leasing Limited, which arose from the motion.
In summary, the Federal Court dismissed the motion to restrain Pegasus Leasing Limited from proceeding with its actions in the South Australian courts. The applicants were required to cover the costs associated with the motion. This decision was rendered based on the precedent set in a similar case, ACT G 18 of 1992.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.