Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Brendas

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Brendas [2009] FCA 1484

CANBERRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD v SPIROS BRENDAS, KENOSS PTY LTD and CANBERRA LAND DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

ACD 12 of 2009

STONE J
14 DECEMBER 2009
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 12 of 2009

BETWEEN:

CANBERRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Appellant

AND:

SPIROS BRENDAS
First Respondent

KENOSS PTY LTD
Second Respondent

CANBERRA LAND DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 DECEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The amended notice of motion filed on 3 August 2009 be dismissed with costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 12 of 2009

BETWEEN:

CANBERRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Appellant

AND:

SPIROS BRENDAS
First Respondent

KENOSS PTY LTD
Second Respondent

CANBERRA LAND DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	14 DECEMBER 2009
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By an amended notice of motion filed on 3 August 2009, the third respondent (applicant on the amended notice of motion) in the appeal seeks orders restraining two firms of solicitors from acting for the appellant, Canberra Residential Developments, in the forthcoming appeal from a judgment of Graham J delivered on 30 January 2009; (2009) 69 ACSR 435. His Honour dismissed claims made by Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd (CRD) against four respondents, including the present three respondents. The firms that are the subject of the present notice of motion are Ben Aulich and Associates (“BA”) who presently represent the appellant and Meyer Vandenberg (“MV”) a firm which has never represented the appellant but which has close ties with Ben Aulich and Associates. The notice of motion was supported by the affidavit of John Patrick Harris of JS O’Connor Harris & Co which has the carriage of the appeal for the third respondent, Canberra Land Developments Pty Ltd (CLD).

2. The facts deposed to by Mr Harris can be briefly summarised.  According to Mr Harris the appeal from Graham J is concerned with issues arising from or in connection with a sale of land that is the subject of proceedings in the ACT Supreme Court (Supreme Court proceedings).  CLD is a party to the Supreme Court Proceedings and is represented by Ms Kristine Scheul and Mr Mark McCormack of MV.

3. In the course of preparing for the Supreme Court proceedings Mr McCormack was given access to “a significant amount of the material that is germane to the First, Second and Third Respondents’ position in this present matter”.  Apparently Mr McCormack obtained copies of 103 pages from the papers of CLD.

4. In the original application in this matter, CRD was represented by Mr Mark Flint, a partner in the law firm, Bradley Allen Layers.  Mr…