Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2006] FCA 1342
•22 AUGUST 2006
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 1342
CYTEL PTY LTD (ACN 098 580 815) v PEOPLEBANK RECRUITMENT PTY LTD (formerly MASTECH ASIA PACIFIC PTY LTD and IGATE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD) (ACN 080 574 616)
NSD 2008 OF 2003
BENNETT J
22 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2008 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
CYTEL PTY LTD (ACN 098 580 815)
ApplicantAND:
PEOPLEBANK RECRUITMENT PTY LTD
(formerly MASTECH ASIA PACIFIC PTY LTD and IGATE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD) (ACN 080 574 616)
Respondent
JUDGE:
BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Cytel Pty Ltd pay Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd’s costs of today.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2008 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
CYTEL PTY LTD (ACN 098 580 815)
ApplicantAND:
PEOPLEBANK RECRUITMENT PTY LTD
(formerly MASTECH ASIA PACIFIC PTY LTD and IGATE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD) (ACN 080 574 616)
Respondent
JUDGE:
BENNETT J
DATE:
22 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 3 August 2006, I refused an application by Cytel for leave to carry on these proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor (Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 985). Cytel had sought leave for Mr Shroff, its sole director, to appear for it in these proceedings.
After delivering judgment, Mr Shroff informed me that he was taking steps to retain a new firm of solicitors to act for Cytel. I ordered Mr Shroff to notify Peoplebank of the identity of the new solicitors within seven days and the matter was stood over for directions this morning.
I am informed by counsel for Peoplebank and it is apparent from an email that was copied to my associate, that it was not until late yesterday that Mr Shroff left a telephone message with the solicitors for Peoplebank stating that he had short-listed two law firms and that their evaluation of Cytel’s case would take another 10 days. Mr Shroff stated in the email that ‘it may be advisable to postpone tomorrow’s listing for another two weeks’. Mr Lucarelli tells me that the telephone message was left after 5:00 pm yesterday evening. The email was not received by him until this morning. The matter was called for hearing this morning for directions. It was intended that the Court make substantive directions to bring the matter to a hearing. There was no appearance for Cytel. Peoplebank seeks an order that Cytel pay its costs of today.
Had Cytel informed Peoplebank that it had been unable to retain solicitors before yesterday, this matter could have been dealt with in Chambers by consent, without the cost of an appearance by Peoplebank. Peoplebank’s costs for appearing today are wasted.
I order Cytel to pay Peoplebank’s costs of today.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bennett. Associate:
Dated: 12 October 2006
Counsel for the Respondent: G Lucarelli Solicitor for the Respondent: Thomson Playford Date of Hearing: 22 August 2006 Date of Judgment: 22 August 2006
0
1
0