Dai Rong-hua v Michael Roberts Strata Management Services Ltd

[2000] FCA 374

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dai Rong-hua v Michael Roberts Strata Management Services Ltd

[2000] FCA 374

DAI RONG-HUA v
MICHAEL ROBERTS STRATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD
(ACN 001814651)

22 MARCH 2000
KATZ J
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1374 of 1999

BETWEEN:	DAI RONG-HUA APPLICANT
AND:	MICHAEL ROBERTS STRATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD (ACN 001814651) RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	Katz J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 March 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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	N 1374 of 1999

BETWEEN:

DAI RONG-HUA

APPLICANT

AND:

MICHAEL ROBERTS STRATA
MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD
(ACN 001814651)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	KATZ J
DATE:	22 MARCH 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There is before the Court a proceeding which was begun by application and supporting affidavit on 25 November 1999.

2. The application names as legislative provisions on which reliance is being placed in connection with the making of the application:

   “Trade Practices Act 1974 s.35, s.36, s.44ZZE(2), s.51AA, s.51AB(2)(d), s.52(1), s.84(1), para. [72,590.25](a)(c)(c) [sic] & etc[;] Crimes Act 1914 s.4AA, s.4B, s.33, s.35(1)(2) [sic] & etc[;] Strata Schemes Management Act 1966 s.164(a)(b)(c) [sic], s.225(1) [sic][;] and any other legislation[.]”

3. In that portion of the application in which the details of the claim are to be set out, one finds the statement, “On the grounds stated in the accompanying Affidavit, the applicant claims” and then, following a list of allegations of illegalities by the respondent, appear the words, “liable for $3,000,000.00 in pecuniary penalties and other punishment”.

4. The affidavit which was filed in support of the application contains merely annexed correspondence and nothing more.

5. When the matter first came on for directions before me on 9 February 2000, I directed, in light of the form which the application took, that the applicant file and serve a statement of claim by 1 March 2000 and directed also that the matter be re-listed for further directions this morning, 22 March 2000, at 9.30 am.

6. The applicant did not comply with the direction to file and serve a statement of claim, whether by 1 March 2000 or at all.

7. The applicant did not appear at 9.30 am this morning for the purpose of the further directions hearing.  I therefore adjourned the matter until now, approximately 10.10 am, in an attempt to assist the applicant if there was some difficulty about his getting here.  However, the applicant still has not appeared.

8. Given the great difficulties that I have with the application in its present form, the applicant’s non-compliance with my direction to file and serve a statement of claim and the applicant’s non-appearance this morning at the directions hearing, I propose to order under O 10, r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules that the application be dismissed.  As well, I order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Katz.

Associate:

Dated:             22 March 2000

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Murray, Stewart & Fogarty Solicitors
Date of Hearing:	22 March 2000
Date of Judgment:	22 March 2000