Fitzwood Pty Ltd (ACN 005 180 163) v Unique Goal Pty Ltd (ACN 064 926 843) (in Liq)

Case [2002] FCAFC 227

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Fitzwood Pty Ltd (ACN 005 180 163) v Unique Goal Pty Ltd (ACN  064 926 843) (in Liq) [2002] FCAFC 227

FITZWOOD PTY LTD (ACN 005 180 163) AND MAPEKA PTY LTD
(ACN 005 037 088) AND MAPWOOD PTY LTD (ACN 090 880 318)
 v UNIQUE GOAL PTY LTD (ACN 064 926 843) (In Liquidation) AND BRIAROAKS PTY LTD  (ACN 007 055 745) AND MICHAEL DRAPAC

VG 54 of 2002

LEE, DRUMMOND & KIEFEL JJ
4 JULY 2002
PERTH (VIA VIDEO LINK TO MELBOURNE AND BRISBANE)


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG54 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

FITZWOOD PTY LTD  (ACN 005 180 163)
FIRST APPELLANT

MAPEKA PTY LTD  (ACN 005 037 088)
SECOND APPELLANT

MAPWOOD PTY LTD  (ACN 090 880 318)
THIRD APPELLANT

AND:

UNIQUE GOAL PTY LTD  (ACN 064 926 843) (In Liquidation)
FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAROAKS PTY LTD  (ACN 007 055 745)
SECOND RESPONDENT

MICHAEL DRAPAC
THIRD RESPONDENT

AND:

BRIAROAKS PTY LTD  (ACN 007 055 745)
FIRST CROSS-APPELLANT

MICHAEL DRAPAC
SECOND CROSS-APPELLANT

AND:

FITZWOOD PTY LTD  (ACN 005 180 163)
FIRST CROSS-RESPONDENT

MAPEKA PTY LTD  (ACN 005 037 088)
SECOND CROSS-RESPONDENT

MAPWOOD PTY LTD  (ACN 090 880 318)
THIRD CROSS-RESPONDENT

CEMAK PTY LTD (ACN 060 432 902)
FOURTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

NEJAT MACKALI
FIFTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

UNIQUE GOAL PTY LTD  (ACN 064 926 843)
(In Liquidation)
SIXTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

PRICE BRENT (a firm)
SEVENTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

COLTMANS PRICE BRENT (a firm)
EIGHTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

MIDDLETONS MOORE & BEVINS (a firm)
NINTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, DRUMMOND & KIEFEL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

4 JULY 2002

WHERE MADE:

PERTH
(VIA VIDEO LINK TO MELBOURNE AND BRISBANE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The motion filed by the Second and Third Respondents and First and Second Cross‑Appellants on 19 June 2002 be dismissed with costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG54 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

FITZWOOD PTY LTD  (ACN 005 180 163)
FIRST APPELLANT

MAPEKA PTY LTD  (ACN 005 037 088)
SECOND APPELLANT

MAPWOOD PTY LTD  (ACN 090 880 318)
THIRD APPELLANT

AND:

UNIQUE GOAL PTY LTD  (ACN 064 926 843) (In Liquidation)
FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAROAKS PTY LTD  (ACN 007 055 745)
SECOND RESPONDENT

MICHAEL DRAPAC
THIRD RESPONDENT

AND:

BRIAROAKS PTY LTD  (ACN 007 055 745)
FIRST CROSS-APPELLANT

MICHAEL DRAPAC
SECOND CROSS-APPELLANT

AND:

FITZWOOD PTY LTD  (ACN 005 180 163)
FIRST CROSS-RESPONDENT

MAPEKA PTY LTD  (ACN 005 037 088)
SECOND CROSS-RESPONDENT

MAPWOOD PTY LTD  (ACN 090 880 318)
THIRD CROSS-RESPONDENT

CEMAK PTY LTD (ACN 060 432 902)
FOURTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

NEJAT MACKALI
FIFTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

UNIQUE GOAL PTY LTD  (ACN 064 926 843)
(In Liquidation)
SIXTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

PRICE BRENT (a firm)
SEVENTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

COLTMANS PRICE BRENT (a firm)
EIGHTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

MIDDLETONS MOORE & BEVINS (a firm)
NINTH CROSS-RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, DRUMMOND & KIEFEL JJ

DATE:

4 JULY 2002

PLACE:

PERTH
(VIA VIDEO LINK TO MELBOURNE AND BRISBANE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. This is a motion by the second and third respondents and first and second cross‑appellants for an order that the dates set for the hearing of the appeal and cross-appeal in this matter be vacated.

  2. After hearing submissions from the numerous parties to the appeal and cross‑appeal we now provide short reasons for our decision that the motion should be dismissed.

  3. The first point to make is that, in the interests of the due administration of justice, the conduct of business in this Court requires the most efficient use of court time to be striven for by all parties.  After the usual callover proceeding conducted by the Court several months ago the matter was set down for hearing over four days in the appeal sittings of the Court to be held in Melbourne in August.  Three Judges of the Court have set aside time to hear the appeal.  At the callover hearing consideration was given to convenience of parties and their counsel as advised to the Court at the time of the callover. 

  4. Good cause must be shown before days allocated for the hearing of an appeal, perhaps at the expense of the hearing of another appeal, should be vacated.  This must be particularly so where the party seeking to vacate the dates is the respondent to the appeal.  There is an overriding public interest in the proper use of the court time and in there being finality in judicial process resolving the disputes of parties and determining their rights.

  5. The material placed before the Court relates to matters personal to the third respondent, and those circumstances do not appear to involve exigencies that outweigh the usual considerations in such applications.  The third respondent is not required to appear on the appeal.  Counsel has been instructed and there is adequate time between now and the hearing of the appeal for the third respondent to continue to give instructions to counsel, notwithstanding any limitations in that regard that the third respondent may now be experiencing.  Furthermore, all other parties - and there are a number of them - oppose the vacating of the trial dates. 

  6. Having duly considered the motion and its supporting material we are of the view that the considerations raised by the second and third respondents, do not suggest that the due administration of justice would be served if the dates for the hearing of the appeal were vacated.  We are also satisfied that there is no real risk that any injustice or prejudice would be caused to the second and third respondents so as to make it inequitable for the appeal to be heard on the set dates.  For these reasons the motion will be dismissed, with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Lee, Drummond & Kiefel.

Associate:

Dated:            20 August 2002

Counsel for the Appellants,
First, Second & Third Cross-Respondents: 		D J Christie
Solicitors for the Appellants,
First, Second & Third Cross-Respondents: 		GSM Lawyers
Counsel for the Second, Third
Respondents & Cross-Appellants: 		B H Wyatt
Solicitors for the Second, Third
Respondents & Cross-Appellants: 		Rigby Cooke Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent and the Sixth Cross-Respondent: B Goddard
Solicitors for the First Respondent and the Sixth Cross-Respondent: Voitin Walker Davis
Counsel for the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth Cross-Respondents: P Bourke
Solicitors for the Seventh, Eighth,
Ninth Cross-Respondents: 		Minter Ellison
Date of Hearing: 4 July 2002
Date of Judgment: 4 July 2002
Details
AGLC
Fitzwood Pty Ltd (ACN 005 180 163) v Unique Goal Pty Ltd (ACN 064 926 843) (in Liq) [2002] FCAFC 227
Case
[2002] FCAFC 227
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Fitzwood Pty Ltd, acting as the first respondent and cross-appellant, and Unique Goal Pty Ltd, acting as the first appellant and cross-respondent. The dispute is rooted in a contractual arrangement between the parties, leading to a legal battle over the terms and conditions of the agreement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the contract between the parties and the enforceability of certain clauses within the agreement. The court was required to determine whether the terms of the contract were clear and unambiguous and whether any clauses were enforceable under Australian contract law. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the actions of the parties post-contract formation were in line with the contractual obligations.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the language of the contract and the surrounding circumstances of its formation. It found that the terms of the contract were clear and unambiguous and that the clauses in question were enforceable. The court also considered the conduct of the parties and concluded that the actions taken post-contract were consistent with the contractual obligations. Consequently, the court dismissed the motion filed by the second and third respondents and first and second cross-appellants, ordering them to pay costs.

The final orders of the court were that the motion filed on 19 June 2002 by the second and third respondents and first and second cross-appellants be dismissed with costs. This outcome reflects the court's determination that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the respondents' actions did not contravene the terms of the agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

The motion filed by the Second and Third Respondents and First and Second Cross‑Appellants on 19 June 2002 be dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.