Custom Credit Corporation Limited v Cenepro Pty Limited

[1991] HCATrans 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl12 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

CUSTOM CREDIT CORPORATION

LIMITED

Respondent/Applicant

and

CENEPRO PTY LIMITED,

WILLIAM JOHN JAMIESON, and

GLENN STEWART PEARSON

Applicant/Respondents

Application for expedition

McHUGH J

(In Chambers)

Custom 1 4/9/91

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON WEDNESDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 1991, AT 10.15 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR D. ROBINSON: If Your Honour please, I appear for

Cenerpro, Jamieson and Pearson who are the

applicants in the summons. (instructed by Freehill

Hollingdale & Page)

MR T. SIMOS, OC:  May it please Your Honour, I appear with

my learned friend, MR P. WHITFORD, for Custom

Credit Corporation, the respondent to the summons.

(instructed by Gadens Ridgeway)

HIS HONOUR:  I understand that the Registrar has

communicated a matter with the solicitors. Is

there any objection to - - -?

MR SIMOS:	We have no objection, Your Honour.
MR ROBINSON:	No objection, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Robinson?
MR ROBINSON:	Your Honour, I move on the summons filed on

30 August 1991. I move for order 3 before

Your Honour. Thought was given to running an

application before Your Honour in respect of

orders land 2 and, regrettably, and in the events

which have happened, there appears to be no power

for Your Honour to deal with those other than in a

special leave application.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, I am not sure that that is correct,

but, in any event, once an application is made to

the Court of Appeal and orders made by that court

either refusing or making a stay order, it would be

a very rare case for this Court to interfere with

that order unless there had been some material
change of circumstances since the making of the

order which could neither be foreseen nor expected.

I might tell you that my understanding is that

this matter can be listed for the sittings of

4 October and an appointment for the settlement of

the index can be made tomorrow. Apart from the

fourth order that you seek, is there anything

further that you want to put in that situation?

MR ROBINSON:  No, Your Honour. My clients would just want

the earliest possible time.

HIS HONOUR:  I have made inquiries. There has been some

change in the composition of the 4 October list and

it is thought that this matter will be able to be

heard in that list.

MR ROBINSON:  Your Honour, that is the substance of my

application.

MR SIMOS: It is not opposed, Your Honour.

Custom 4/9/91

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. What about settling the index tomorrow?

MR ROBINSON:	I am sure that can be done, Your Honour.
MR SIMOS:	We will do our best, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes. Well, now, the question which remains is

what should I do with the summons?

MR SIMOS:  Your Honour has granted orders 3 and 4, neither

of which we oppose.	Your Honour would not dismiss
prayers 1 and 2.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. I am not sure that I have granted No 3

but I am just saying that, in the ordinary course

of events, this matter will be heard on 4 October.

My understanding it will be - - -

MR SIMOS:  Your Honour, we would not wish to oppose order 4,

in any event, and we do not seek costs in relation

to 1 and 2.

HIS HONOUR:  Perhaps, what I shall do is: I will not make

orders 1, 2 or 3 but I note that it is my

understanding that this matter can be heard in the

special leave list to be heard in Sydney on

4 October. I also note that it is my understanding

that the appointment for the settlement of the

index can be made today and the index can be

settled tomorrow. So far as order 4 of the summons

is concerned, I make the order that the costs of

this application be costs in the application for

special leave to appeal.	I certify for the
attendance of counsel.

MR ROBINSON: If Your Honour pleases.

MR SIMOS: If Your Honour please.

AT 10.20 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Custom 3 4/9/91