Galaxy Electronics v Sega Enterprises

[1998] HCATrans 74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S71 of 1997

B e t w e e n -

GALAXY ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED

Applicant

and

SEGA ENTERPRISES LIMITED

First Respondent

AVEL PTY LIMITED

Second Respondent

Office of the Registry

Sydney  No S72 of 1997

B e t w e e n -

GOTTLIEB ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED

Applicant

and

SEGA ENTERPRISES LIMITED

First Respondent

AVEL PTY LIMITED

Second Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 13 MARCH 1998, AT 3.22 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

______________________

MR G.E. CUSSEN:   I appear for the respondents in this matter, your Honours.  (of Kemp Strang)

MS K. EDWARDS:   I appear for the applicants.  (of Corrs Chambers Westgarth)

MS EDWARDS:   Your Honours, I am instructed that the parties have for some time been engaged in settlement negotiations ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J:   When are they going to finish them?

MS EDWARDS:   I understand they should be finished fairly shortly.  Unfortunately ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J:   I sat in the Federal Court for many years and I used to hear this every Friday.  I did not expect to hear it when I came here.

MS EDWARDS:   Although we are solicitors on record for the High Court and the Federal Court matters, we are not actually involved in the settlement discussions ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J:   Exactly, and someone has to bring it to the very sharp attention of these foreign principals, if they are foreign principals, that Australian courts just do not ride along waiting for them to decide what they are going to do.

MS EDWARDS:   That is right. 

GUMMOW J:   This matter has been extant since when, last August, in this Court?  Was it not adjourned to the Federal Court last August?

MS EDWARDS:   Yes, it would have been.

GUMMOW J:   Really.  What is going on?

MS EDWARDS:   My friend might be able to answer that.

MR CUSSEN:   If I could assist, your Honour.  The position is essentially that the parties, save for the first respondent, have agreed substantially to documentation.  The settlement is based on the fact that on the basis that the first respondent, who is a Japanese corporation, agrees to the documentation, then the matter will be resolved within the next 30 days.  It is the application of all parties that these proceedings respectively stand over to a date convenient to the Court.  We have made inquiries of the Registry and understand that date may well be the 19th ‑ ‑ ‑

McHUGH J:   19 May, is it not?

GUMMOW J:   It will stand dismissed on that day, I expect, unless you have got your houses in order.  The application will stand dismissed.  There will not be any further applications for extension of time.

MR CUSSEN:   I appreciate that, your Honour, yes.

GUMMOW J:   The sooner the people in Japan understand that, the better.

MR CUSSEN:   Yes, your Honour.  The position is effectively, just to put some flesh on that, your Honours, the settlement entails not just these proceedings but a number of other sets of proceedings and that is with parties not also involved in these proceedings, and that has been the

complication.  But our respectful submission is, by consent, that the proceedings stand to a date convenient to this Court.

McHUGH J:   Yes.  Very well. 

The matter will be adjourned to 19 May, but I indicate to the parties that if the matter has not been settled by that date and the applicant is not ready to proceed, the application will be dismissed on that day.

MR CUSSEN:   Thank you, your Honours.

AT 3.25 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
UNTIL TUESDAY, 19 MAY 1998