Glover & Sheils, in the matter of Roche

[2005] FCA 1244

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Glover & Sheils, in the matter of Roche [2005] FCA 1244

WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT v PILOR PTY LTD, JANELLE MAREE ROCHE, PIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED, MAYHEN GAMES PTY LIMITED, FAIRCHROME PTY LIMITED, MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED, MARK AND NOORIANI BLUMER, IPAQ PTY LIMITED, KEN OWEN, WEERATNEMULLA GAMAGE SANATH WEERATNE

QUD 140 OF 2005

DOWSETT J
1 SEPTEMBER 2005
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 140 OF 2005

IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER AND BARRY ROCHE

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT
APPLICANT

AND:

PILOR PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

JANELLE MAREE ROCHE
SECOND RESPONDENT

PIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

MAYHEN GAMES PTY LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENT

FAIRCHROME PTY LIMITED
FIFTH RESPONDENT

MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
SIXTH RESPONDENT

MARK AND NOORIANI BLUMER
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

IPAQ PTY LIMITED
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

KEN OWEN
NINTH RESPONDENT

WEERATNEMULLA GAMAGE SANATH WEERATNE
TENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The notice of motion filed 18 August 2005 be dismissed

2.The applicants on the motion be ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the motion, including reserve costs.  Those costs are to be paid forthwith.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 140 OF 2005

IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER AND BARRY ROCHE

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT
APPLICANT

AND:

PILOR PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

JANELLE MAREE ROCHE
SECOND RESPONDENT

PIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

MAYHEN GAMES PTY LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENT

FAIRCHROME PTY LIMITED
FIFTH RESPONDENT

MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
SIXTH RESPONDENT

MARK AND NOORIANI BLUMER
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

IPAQ PTY LIMITED
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

KEN OWEN
NINTH RESPONDENT

WEERATNEMULLA GAMAGE SANATH WEERATNE
TENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	1 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I am not willing, at this stage, on the material before me, to set aside the order that the costs be paid forthwith.  That order was made in connection with action SC 211 of 2004, which was part of the consolidated proceedings but was discontinued by virtue of the order of 30 August 2004, prior to the consolidated proceedings being transferred to this Court.  It is not a matter of which I am seized.  Therefore, Order 35 rule 7 does not apply to it, and it is not within my jurisdiction to re-visit that order, other than by way of a Constitutional writ or on appeal.  The motion will be dismissed.

2. Whatever the merits of Messrs Glover and Sheils’ case, the present motion is misconceived.  I order that the applicants on the motion pay the respondents’ costs of these proceedings, including reserved costs.  I decline to order that they be paid on an indemnity basis.  I do so because this aspect of the proceedings has not been on foot for long.  I see no reason why there should be any substantial difference between “solicitor and client” and “party and party” costs.  In those circumstances I am not minded to exercise the discretion in that way.

3. The order will therefore be that the motion be dismissed and that the applicants on the motion pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the motion, including reserved costs.  Those costs are to be paid forthwith.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            6 September 2005

Counsel for the Applicants on the motion:	Mr C Ward
Solicitor for the Applicants on the motion:	Peter R Glover
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Tucker & Cowen
Date of Hearing:	1 September 2005
Date of Judgment:	1 September 2005