Giumelli v Giumelli
[2000] WASC 77
•28 MARCH 2000
GIUMELLI -v- GIUMELLI & ORS [2000] WASC 77
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASC 77 | |
| 28/03/2000 | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1517/1986 | 15 MARCH 2000 | |
| Coram: | MASTER BREDMEYER | 15/03/00 | |
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ROBERT JOHN GIUMELLI GIOVANNI GIUMELLI ROSA GIUMELLI STEVEN GIUMELLI TONY GIUMELLI |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure |
Legislation: | Partnership Act 1895 (WA), s 55(1) |
Case References: | Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
GIOVANNI GIUMELLI
ROSA GIUMELLI
First Defendants
STEVEN GIUMELLI
Second Defendant
TONY GIUMELLI
Third Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure
Legislation:
Partnership Act 1895 (WA), s 55(1)
(Page 2)
Result:
Application dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr R A C Cullen
First Defendants : Mr G D Crocket
Second Defendant : Mr G R Dean
Third Defendant : No appearance
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Dwyer Durack
First Defendants : G D Crocket & Co
Second Defendant : G Dean & Associates
Third Defendant : No appearance
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MASTER BREDMEYER: I have been asked to review my decision given on 29 February 2000. It is said to have been given by mistake, in ignorance of several matters. I was not misled by Mr Cullen's statement that the relevant papers in the partnership action were not before the High Court in Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10. That did not influence me. I consider that the High Court statements on the partnership action were obiter and that, with the greatest respect, they got it wrong. I consider that what they said about the future of the partnership action was not the best way to go. I had also read all the orders given by various Masters on the taking of the accounts and I was aware that the plaintiff had chosen previously to proceed by the first option contained in s 55(1) of the Partnership Act 1895 (WA).
2 If this change of option requires amendment of the pleadings it should be done formally in written form and not just in a statement from the bar table. I consider it fair that Mr Dean's client can be heard on this as it was a new matter which cropped up in the course of our hearing on 29 February, at which he was not present.
3 I am not willing to reverse my decision on consolidation. I will make the following orders:
4 (1) The application be adjourned to 30 March 2000 at 2.15pm for argument on O 2 set out in the plaintiff's minute of proposed orders.
5 (2) I extend the time for the appeal against my orders made on 29 February 2000 until further order.
6 (3) Costs reserved.
0