Eenjes, H. v Oakbrand Pty Ltd

[1990] FCA 422

JUDGMENT NO. ..m /."I5

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Leave to appeal out of time from an

Anton Pillar type order against a persons not a party to the principal proceeding.

HARM EENJES & ANOR. v OAKBRAND PTY. LTD. & ORS.

QG6 of 1989

Lockhart, Spender and Ryan JJ.

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. QG6 of 1989
1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF

THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:  HARM EENJES & ANOR.

Appellant

AND :  OAKBRAND PTY LTD & ORS.

Respondent

COURT	:	LOCKHART, SPENDER, RYAN JJ.
DATE :	23 JULY 1990

PLACE :  BRISBANE

MINUTE OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The motion for leave to appeal out of time be refused.

2.    The applicant on the motion pay the cost of the respondent of the motion.

NOTE:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order
36 of the Federal Court Rules.

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	1 No. QG6 of 1989
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF

THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:  HARM EENJES & ANOR.

Appellant

AND:  OAKBRAND PTY LTD & ORS.

Respondent

COURT :	LOCKHART, SPENDER, RYAN JJ.
DATE :	23 JULY 1990
PLACE :	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

This is a motion for leave to appeal out of time from an order of a single Judge of this Court of 18 April 1990 of an Anton Pillar kind against a person who is not a party to the principal proceeding.

For reasons which emerged in the course of argument and, to a degree, in the evidence, the appeal has, in our opinion become academic except perhaps as to any costs and expenses which may have been incurred by the applicant on the motion in gathering together the documents the subject of the orders under challenge and producing them to the District Registrar of the Queensland District Registry of the Court.

In our view the applicant should be at liberty to approach a Judge of the Court for any appropriate order with respect to those costs and expenses. What attitude the Judge takes to them, is, of course, entirely a matter for him. In the Court's opinion it is not appropriate for leave to be granted in this case; but we express no view on the merits of the questions raised in this matter, including the question whether an order of the Anton Pillar kind may be made against a person who is not a party to the principal litigation.

Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the motion for leave to appeal out of time be refused. The Court orders the applicant on the motion to pay the costs of the respondent of the motion.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.

Associate C,&-& I

M: 23 July 1990 1990

Counsel for the Appellant	P. Dutney
Solicitors for the Appellant :	Cooper Grace & Ward

Counsel for the Respondents	:	A.J. Morris
Solicitors for the Respondents:	R.G. Kilner & Rhuz