Dimos, Leo (T/as Leo Dimos and Associates) v Dikeakos Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 005 779 288)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. VG 3394 of 1995
)

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: LEO DIMOS trading as LEO DIMOS & ASSOCIATES

(Applicant)

AND: DIKEAKOS NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 005 779 288)

(Respondent)

CORAM:    Ryan J
DATE:     31 October 1996
PLACE:    Melbourne

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RYAN J: I regard this motion as a regrettable illustration of misdirected energy and lack of meaningful communication between the solicitors for the parties. It is not possible totally to absolve either solicitor from responsibility for the misconception which I consider permeated the volume of largely unnecessary correspondence which has been generated since the Full Court's order. For the purpose of making absolutely clear which I consider was the undoubted intention and effect that the injunction was to cease to operate when the order of the Full Court was pronounced on 17 July 1996, I shall make a declaration to that effect.

Because of the matters to which I referred, subject to one aspect, I regard it as inappropriate to make any order as to
costs. I should interpolate that, as indicated in the course of argument, I do not regard the costs of today's motion as flowing from the injunction so as to be recoverable pursuant to the applicant's undertaking as to damages. The one matter which I regard as an exception to my original view that I should not make any order as to costs, is the fact that the applicant was, I consider, compelled by indications received from the solicitor for the respondent to attend in answer to the motion in order to ensure that no order as to costs was made against him. I shall therefore order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of this day, confined to counsel's fee on brief. I fix those costs in the sum of $1,000.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Ryan.

Associate:

Date:

Counsel for the applicant : Mr M. Dreyfus

Solicitors for the applicant : Leo Dimos & Associates

Counsel for the respondent : Mr C.R. Northrop

Solicitors for the respondent : N.C. Gay & Co

Date of Hearing : 31 October 1996

Date of Judgment : 31 October 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dimos, Leo (T/as Leo Dimos and Associates) v Dikeakos Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 005 779 288) involves a dispute between the applicant, Leo Dimos trading as Leo Dimos & Associates, and the respondent, Dikeakos Nominees Pty Ltd, an Australian company. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, Victoria District Registry, General Division. The applicant sought to clarify the effect of a Full Court order that had been made on 17 July 1996, which was perceived differently by the parties' solicitors. The applicant believed the injunction ceased to operate upon the Full Court's order, while the respondent's solicitors believed otherwise, leading to further correspondence and a motion before the court.

The legal issue before the court was to determine the precise effect of the Full Court's order on the injunction. The applicant sought a declaration that the injunction ceased to operate when the Full Court's order was pronounced. The court needed to examine the Full Court's order and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the correct interpretation and ensure clarity in the parties' understanding of their rights and obligations. Additionally, the court was asked to decide on the issue of costs, given the misdirected energy and misunderstandings between the parties' solicitors.

Justice Ryan found that the misunderstanding stemmed from a lack of meaningful communication between the parties' solicitors. The judge acknowledged that both solicitors shared some responsibility for the misconception. Ryan J was satisfied that the Full Court's order was intended to and did result in the injunction ceasing to operate. Therefore, the court made a declaration to that effect. Regarding costs, the judge initially considered it inappropriate to make any order as to costs due to the nature of the misunderstanding. However, the judge identified an exception in that the applicant was compelled to attend the motion to prevent an order for costs being made against him. Consequently, the judge ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the day, limited to counsel's fee on brief, and fixed the amount at $1,000.

The final orders of the court were that a declaration be made that the injunction ceased to operate when the order of the Full Court was pronounced on 17 July 1996, and the respondent was to pay the applicant's costs of the day, limited to counsel's fee on brief, in the sum of $1,000.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established