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:

1. Before the Full Court are two issues which arise in the management of the appeal, which is to be heard next week.

2. The first issue is whether, at this stage, Mr Jackson QC and Mr Palyga be given access to the restricted material.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. As we followed the submissions before us, there is nothing really contentious about this as a case management measure.

6. 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 the appeal.

7. A further case management aspect of the appeal should also be dealt with here.  The Full Court will be assisted by the appellants filing and serving, as soon as practicable, a schedule stating the following:  the specific findings of fact which, the appellants submit, the Full Court should make in relation to the conduct of Dr Fergie, Professor Saunders and Mr Tickner, so as to result in the entry of judgment against each of them on the claims for misleading and deceptive conduct or negligence, supported by references to the evidence relied upon to support each finding.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:            12 November 2002

Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr D Jackson QC Mr S Palyga
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Lynch and Meyer
Counsel for the First and Second Respondent:	Mr T Anderson QC
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondent:	Thomson Playford
Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondent:	Mr A Robertson QC Ms D Mortimer Mr M Frayne
Solicitor for the Third and Fourth Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for Dr D Kartinyeri seeking leave to intervene:	Mr S Tilmouth QC
Date of Hearing:	11 November 2002
Date of Judgment:	12 November 2002