Gilbert, C.A. v Tripstar Pty Ltd

[1991] FCA 875

JUDGMENT No. @.F/ .....

IN THE F E D E W COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)	No. NG 407 of 1991
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)

DIVI-SLQI )

BETWEEN: COLLEEN ANN GILBERT. BARRY JOIIN GILBERT

AND ARTHUR HENRY BEETSm

Applicants

AND: TRIPSTAR PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

AND: REXSTAR PTY. LIMITED

Second Respondent

AND: JUSTIN BAILEY LAMONT CRAIG

Third Respondent

AND: MICHAEL JAMES CRAIG

Fourth Respondent

AND:  POWER JEFFREY h CO. PTY. LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

=E MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J.

DATE OF ORDER:	28 NOVEMBER 199 1
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
NOTE :	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

1.    The defence of the fifth respondent be filed and served by Monday 9 December 1991.

2.    Further mention be adjourned to Tuesday 10 December 1991 at 9.15 a . m . .

3.    One hour be kept for it.

4.    Costs of today be costs in the proceedings.

IN THE FEDERALXOURT OF AUSTRALIA	1	No. NG 407 of 1991
PEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN: COLLEEN ANN GILBERT. BARRY JOHN GILBERT

AND ARTHUR HENRY BEETSON

Applicants

AND: TRIPSTAR PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

AND: REXSTAR PTY. LIMITED

Second Respondent

AND: JUSTIN BAILEY LAMONT CRAIG

Third Respondent

AND: MICHAEL JAMES CRAIG

Fourth Respondent

AND: POWER JEFFREY & CO. PTY. LIMITEJ

Fifth Respondent

CORAM: PINCUS J.

:  BRISBANE

m: 20 NOVEMBER 1991

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I want to say something about inspection. I will order that the defence of the fifth respondent be filed and served by Monday, 9 December, and I will adjourn the further

mention to Tuesday, 10 December at 9.15 a.m.. It appears that

so far as discovery disputes are concerned, the parties have
adopted the practice of informing each other by letter of what
is the subject of complaint, and I would encourage that.

It is, however, desirable that any such letters - if

there are to be any further letters written - be written and
received by Friday, 6 December, so that the opponent has at
least one clear day to study the complaint. I cannot really
order that to be done because it may be that you think of
something later, but I would simply urge the parties not to

deliver such letters the day before the hearing.

Now, Mr Morris has raised serious problems about

inspection. It does appear from what he says that inspection
is unusually drawn out. It may be that the fourth respondent
needs some special relief in respect of inspection. I cannot,
however, make any order about that today, because there is no
agreement about the facts and it may be that eventually there
will have to be a hearing about inspection. That is
undesirable because, as Mr Morris himself says, the cost of
that hearing itself could be substantial and make the whole

exercise not worthwhile.

So that, although to do so may be futile, I would

urge the parties to try to avoid the necessity of such a
hearing, and that involves, I think, Mr Fleming Q.C.'s side in

ensuring that the inspection takes place as expeditiously as

possible. I cannot really make any useful order about

inspection, I am afraid. It just seems to be going on, and
going on at really unusual length.

So I will adjourn the matter until 9.15 am on

Tuesday, 10 December, and there will be an hour kept for it.

The costs of today will be costs in the proceedings.

I certify that this and the
two preceding pages are a
true copy of the reasons

for judgment herein of his

Honour Mr. Justice Pincus -7

--

c:= l*. 3 GL- (.-..-, a -c-

Associate

Date 2.fi t . \b\l~w\k.r l"\?\