Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 789
THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN, WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN, BINALONG PTY LIMITED (ACN 007 620 439) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(IN LIQUIDATION) v
LUMINIS PTY LTD (ACN 008 027 085), DEANE JOANNE FERGIE, CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS, ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
S152 OF 2001
TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
19 JUNE 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S152 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN
WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN
BINALONG PTY LIMITED
(ACN 007 620 439)
(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(IN LIQUIDATION)
APPELLANTS

AND:

LUMINIS PTY LTD (ACN 008 027 085)
DEANE JOANNE FERGIE
CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS
ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER and
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JUNE 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The stay in this matter is revoked and ceased to apply as and from 11 June 2002 when security satisfactory to the Registrar was provided
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S152 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN
WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN
BINALONG PTY LIMITED
(ACN 007 620 439)
(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(IN LIQUIDATION)
APPELLANTS

AND:

LUMINIS PTY LTD (ACN 008 027 085)
DEANE JOANNE FERGIE
CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS
ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER and
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE:

19 JUNE 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Having read submissions for the appellants and noting that the respondents do not propose to make any submissions in relation to the question of the lifting of the stay in this matter, I note that the security required was provided to the satisfaction of the Registrar and therefore I order that the stay of the appeal proceedings which came into effect on 30 May 2002, has ceased to apply and is revoked as from 11 June 2002.
The order of the Court therefore is that the stay in this matter is revoked and ceased to apply as and from 11 June 2002 when security satisfactory to the Registrar was provided.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:
Dated: 19 June 2002

Solicitor for the Appellants:

Lynch Meyer

Solicitor for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor

Date of final submissions:

18 June 2002

Date of Judgment:

19 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Chapman, the plaintiff, brought an action against Luminis Pty Ltd, the defendant, concerning a dispute over the payment of contractual obligations. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had failed to make payments for services rendered and goods supplied under a contract. The defendant sought an injunction to stay the proceedings, which was initially granted. The plaintiff subsequently applied to have the injunction lifted, arguing that the stay was no longer necessary due to changes in the circumstances. The court was required to determine whether the stay should be maintained or revoked, taking into account the parties' respective positions and any relevant legal principles.

The court considered the balance of convenience and whether the stay was still necessary to protect the defendant's interests. It examined the changes in circumstances, including the provision of security by the plaintiff, and assessed the impact of these changes on the need for the stay. The court also considered the potential prejudice to both parties if the stay was either maintained or revoked. The plaintiff argued that the stay was no longer necessary due to the provision of security and the defendant's failure to demonstrate any prejudice that would result from the revocation of the stay. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the stay should be maintained to protect its interests and ensure that the plaintiff did not proceed with the action without proper security in place.

After carefully considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the court found that the stay was no longer necessary due to the provision of security by the plaintiff. The court determined that the balance of convenience had shifted in favour of the plaintiff, and that the defendant had not demonstrated any significant prejudice that would result from the revocation of the stay. The court held that the stay should be revoked and ceased to apply as and from 11 June 2002, when security satisfactory to the Registrar was provided. The plaintiff's application to have the injunction lifted was therefore successful, and the stay was revoked.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S152 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN BINALONG PTY LIMITED (ACN 007 620 439) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) APPELLANTS
AND:	LUMINIS PTY LTD (ACN 008 027 085) DEANE JOANNE FERGIE CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 JUNE 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S152 OF 2001

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	19 JUNE 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Solicitor for the Appellants:	Lynch Meyer
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of final submissions:	18 June 2002
Date of Judgment:	19 June 2002