Frigger v Banning (No 2)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Frigger v Banning (No 2) [2017] FCA 1639

File number(s):	WAD 178 of 2017
Judge(s):	SIOPIS J
Date of judgment:	21 December 2017
Date of hearing:	21 December 2017
Registry:	Western Australia
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	General and Personal Insolvency
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	9
Counsel for the Applicants:	The Applicants appeared in person.
Counsel for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents:	Mr TR Stephenson
Solicitor for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents:	Eastwood Law

ORDERS

WAD 178 of 2017

BETWEEN:

ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER

First Applicant

HARTMUT HUBERT JOSEF FRIGGER

Second Applicant

AND:

SANDRA MAY BANNING

First Respondent

DONALD CAMPBELL-SMITH

Second Respondent

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 082 879 641) (and another named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 DECEMBER 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants’ application for leave to appeal from orders 1, 2 and 3 of the orders of Barker J made on 8 March 2017 is dismissed.

2.The applicants’ interlocutory application dated 18 December 2017 is dismissed.

3.The applicants are to pay all of the costs and expenses of the respondents of and incidental to the applications referred to in order 1 and order 2 above, including any reserved costs, except insofar as they are of an unreasonable amount or have been unreasonably incurred, so that subject to the above exception, the respondents are completely indemnified by the applicants in respect of their costs of opposing the applications, to be taxed if not agreed.

4.For the avoidance of doubt, the time for the filing of the respondents’ responsive submissions is extended to 17 August 2017.

5.Federal Court of Australia proceeding no WAD 607 of 2015 is listed for a directions hearing on Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 10.15 am.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SIOPIS J:

1. This is an interlocutory application which was filed yesterday by Mr and Mrs Frigger (the Friggers).

2. On 8 March 2017, Barker J refused to permit the Friggers to file their proposed amended originating process and amended statement of claim dated 4 May 2016 in WAD 607 of 2015.  The Friggers brought an application for leave to appeal against the orders of Barker J of 8 March 2017 (the Friggers’ leave to appeal application).  The respondents to that application include Banning Holdings Pty Ltd (Banning Holdings) and Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd (PSA).  The judgment in that application is listed to be delivered later today.

3. By this interlocutory application, the Friggers seek an order staying the delivery of that judgment.

4. The Friggers seek to stay the delivery of the judgment pending the resolution of further claims which the Friggers make in this interlocutory application.  In summary, the relief which the Friggers seek in this interlocutory application, pursuant to those claims, is as follows.

   (a)Pursuant to a judgment of Smith AJ in Lean…