Formula 1 Investments Pty Ltd v Kalari Pty Ltd

[1989] FCA 760

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

760    I /

3UDGMENT No ........ ........ ........ ....

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) NO. NG 99 of 1989
)
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEEN: FORMULA 1 INVESTMENTS PTY

LIMITED

Applicant

AND :

Respondents

8 September 1989

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.: This is a proceeding which was commenced by application filed on 6 March 1989. The application and the statement of claim which I have read disclose what I would describe as a melange of causes of action, but in essence the case arises out of what are said to be certain representations made in August of last year by or on behalf of the first respondent, Kalari Pty Limited, to the applicant, Formula 1 Investments Pty Limited, relating to certain touring car races around Australia and the cars, or some of them, involved or to be involved in those races.

appear from the affidavit of Ronald Peddley, sworn on 30

The applicant initially had, it appears, quantified its
claim in 2 substantial sum of money, but for reasons which

August this year, the applicant now particularises its claim for damages as being in the order of some $30,000. The applicant in those circumstances, and by reason of provisions relating to costs in both this Court in Order 62 rule 36(a) and part 19A of the rules of the District Court of New South Wales, seeks to have the matter transferred to the District Court of New South Wales.

That motion was opposed by the respondents on a variety of grounds whlch include the fact that the matter has been with this Court since its inception and has been the subject 6f various directions hearings, including a direction by consent that the matter be set down for trial. Also the respondents point to the considerable delay that it would appear exists in the trial of actions of this nature in the District Court at present.

In my view, whatever one may say as to whether the action ought to have been brought in this Court rather than a

State Court upon its inception, it does appear to have been

brought in this Court with jurisdiction. The problem is that there have been at least three directions hearings since the matter was commenced, and as I said, on 14 July last a Judge of this Court, by consent, gave leave to the parties to approach the Registrar to obtain a hear~ng date. That followed certain interlocutory skirmishes principally relating to provision of particulars of the statement of claim.

The matter was not set down for hearing notwithstanding that some nearly two months have passed since that leave to obtain a hearing date was given. The applicant states that the reason for that is because it was after leave was so glven that the reduction in the claim for damages to $30,000 became clear and it was then decided that this motion should be brought.

That, I think does, to my mind, suffic~ently explain why the hearing date was not obtained, but it leaves this Court in the position where directions have been given on a number of occasions, and leave has been given to obtaln a

matter at this stage to have it transferred to another Court, hearing date. The Court is, I think, too Ear seized of the and it should proceed and conclude in this Court.

Accordingly, the motion is dismissed.

The proper order for costs should be that the costs of the motion be the respondent's costs in the proceeding, and I make that order.

I direct the applicant to file and serve its defence to the respondent's cross-claim on or before 22 September 1989 and as leave has been given to obtaln a hearing date I need not make any further order in that regard except to confirm it insofar as the same may be necessary.

I hereby certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of The

on. . Justice Lockhart

&& ssokiate A-.-

Dated 8 September 1989

Counsel for Applicant :	Mr. S. Reuben
Solicitor for Applicant:	Peddley Dawson
Solicitor for Respondents:	Hunter Newns and Cornish
Date of hearing:	8 September 1989
Date of judgment	8 September 1989