Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd - [2002] FCAFC 343

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 343
THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN, WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN AND BINALONG PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) V LUMINIS PTY LIMITED, DEANE JOANNE FERGIE, CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS AND ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER
NO S 152 OF 2001
BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG & HELY JJ
12 NOVEMBER 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 152 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN
FIRST APPELLANT

WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN
SECOND APPELLANT

BINALONG PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION)
THIRD APPELLANT

AND:

LUMINIS PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

DEANE JOANNE FERGIE
SECOND RESPONDENT

CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS
THIRD RESPONDENT

ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG & HELY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

12 NOVEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
The application be stood over, reserving liberty to restore the application at the conclusion of argument on the other aspects of the appeal.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 152 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN
FIRST APPELLANT

WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN
SECOND APPELLANT

BINALONG PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION)
THIRD APPELLANT

AND:

LUMINIS PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

DEANE JOANNE FERGIE
SECOND RESPONDENT

CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS
THIRD RESPONDENT

ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG & HELY JJ

DATE:

12 NOVEMBER 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR DIRECTIONS
BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG & HELY JJ:

Before the Full Court are two issues which arise in the management of the appeal, which is to be heard next week.
The first issue is whether, at this stage, Mr Jackson QC and Mr Palyga be given access to the restricted material.
Although the parties have filed written submissions on the appeal, it is, in our view, necessary that the appellants clarify, by way of supplementary written submission, the basis, or bases, upon which the appellants will seek to rely upon the restricted material in the prosecution of their appeal. As mentioned in argument, this could be done, in the first instance at least, by Mrs Shaw preparing a document indicating this, and showing it, initially at least, to female counsel for the respondents and to Dr Kartinyeri only. This should be done as soon as practicable.
As also discussed in argument, the “restricted” aspect of the appeal would be presented after the presentation of submissions on the other aspects of the appeal.
As we followed the submissions before us, there is nothing really contentious about this as a case management measure.
The second question before us is an application by Dr Kartinyeri for leave to intervene on the first issue. In the circumstances, having heard Mr Tilmouth QC, we do not propose to make any formal order at this stage, save to stand the application over, reserving liberty to restore the application at the conclusion of argument on the other aspects of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 343
Case: [2002] FCAFC 343
Decision Date: 12 NOVEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd, the appellants, Thomas Lincoln Chapman, Wendy Jennifer Chapman, and Binalong Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Liquidation), appealed against the respondents, Luminis Pty Limited, Deane Joanne Fergie, Cheryl Anne Saunders, and Robert Edward Tickner. The primary issue in the appeal was related to the conduct of the respondents and whether they engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct or negligence. The case was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the appellants should be granted access to restricted material, and if Dr. Kartinyeri should be allowed to intervene in the appeal. The court also needed to determine the specific findings of fact that the appellants should present to support their claims against the respondents.

The Full Court decided that the appellants should clarify, through supplementary written submissions, the basis on which they would rely on the restricted material in the prosecution of their appeal. The court also decided to stand the application for Dr. Kartinyeri to intervene over, reserving the liberty to restore the application at the conclusion of argument on the other aspects of the appeal. Additionally, the court requested that the appellants provide a schedule stating the specific findings of fact they would rely on, supported by evidence, to result in judgment against the respondents on the claims for misleading and deceptive conduct or negligence.

The final orders of the court were to stand the application over, reserving the liberty to restore the application at the conclusion of argument on the other aspects of the appeal. The court also requested that the appellants file and serve a schedule of specific findings of fact to support their claims against the respondents.

Orders