INP Consortium Ltd v Tourang Ltd

6SG 93

JUDGMENT NO. ........ ....oeeo.aI .m . . * . . . . . ..

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1

NEW SOU TH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 812 of 1991

)

GENERAL DIVISION 1
INP CONSORTIUM LIMITED

Applicant
TOURANG LIMITED

RECEIVED First Respondent

2! 1 SEP 1993 D L NIcHOLL and K W SKINNER

Second Respondents

AUSTRALIA
PRINCIPAL

REGISTRY ORD MINNETT SECURITIES
LIMITED
Third Respondent

14 September 1993

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

This matter has been specially fixed for hearing to commence on 18 October 1993. Five days were allotted for the case as that was the estimate of the length of hearing of the case which the Court was given initially. Since then, events have moved fairly rapidly, to the point where there have been substantial changes to the case of the applicant. That has led to the respondents having different approaches to their readiness for the hearing on 18 October and has, indeed, led to the case being a great deal longer than it was initially thought to be. It is now, it seems, common ground that it may take two weeks or 10 days to hear.

Dr O'Reilly, who will be a witness for the applicant, is a resident of the Republic of Ireland and I have been informed by

his counsel that though his evidence will be essential, he is unable to be in Australia during the week for which the case has been fixed. There is no evidence before me today as to Dr O'Reilly's position, but I accept what I have been told by counsel. It has been suggested by counsel for the applicant that the evidence of Dr OIReilly might be taken on Friday, 22 October, from Ireland by video link. That cours-e is not agreed in by all the respondents. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it would not be right for the Court to force upon the parties the taking of evidence from Dr O'Reilly by video link.

I am mindful of the fact that the case will not finish during the week commencing 18 October, if it starts then, and it will in any event have to be adjourned to a later date, which probably would be next year. Notwithstanding that, I am not persuaded that the dates allocated for hearing should be vacated.

I think the fixture should stay, even though the case will not

finish during that week.

The position of Dr O'Reilly and his availability or otherwise to give evidence will have to be attended to by himself and his counsel and solicitors. But it must not be assumed by the applicant that Dr O'Reilly cannot be here that week. That is a matter for the applicant to sort out itself.

Accordingly, I confirm the fixture for 18 October.
Costs of today are reserved.

In addition to what I have said, the second respondent has through its counsel made it clear that there will be difficulties confronting that party so far as the presentation of its case is concerned if the case commences on 18 October. I note that that is what I have been told. The trial judge will no doubt take it into account.

I certify that this and the
preceding two (2) pages are a true c o ~ v of the reasons for
Associate
Dated: 14 September 1993

Counsel for the Applicant D M J Bennett QC
V R Gray

Solicitors for the Applicant Landerer & Company
Solicitors for First Respondent Freehill Hollingdale &
Page
Counsel for Second Respondent S G Finch
Solicitors for Second Respondent Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Counsel for Third Respondent R Cutler
Solicitors for Third Respondent Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing 14 September 1993
Date of Judgment 14 September 1993

INP Consortium Limited brought an application against Tourang Limited, the second and third respondents, seeking various reliefs, including an injunction to restrain the respondents from disposing of their shares in Tourang Limited. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from disposing of their shares in Tourang Limited. The court also considered the implications of the applicant's need for evidence from Dr O'Reilly, who was unable to be present in Australia during the week for which the case had been initially fixed.

The court carefully considered the applicant's request for an injunction and the potential impact of Dr O'Reilly's unavailability on the proceedings. While acknowledging the applicant's need for Dr O'Reilly's evidence, the court was not persuaded to alter the originally scheduled hearing dates. The judge emphasized that the applicant should not assume Dr O'Reilly would be unavailable and should make necessary arrangements to ensure his presence. The judge further noted that the case was likely to extend beyond the initially allocated five days and might need to be adjourned to the following year. The judge also highlighted the second respondent's potential difficulties in presenting its case if the trial commenced on the initially scheduled date.

The court ultimately decided to confirm the fixture for 18 October, despite the likelihood that the case would not finish during that week. The judge reserved the decision on costs and directed the parties to address the matter of Dr O'Reilly's availability and any other logistical issues before the hearing. The trial judge was instructed to take into account the second respondent's difficulties in presenting its case when scheduling the trial. The decision was made to ensure the case proceeded in an orderly manner, considering the complexities and changes in the applicant's case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

RECEIVED	First Respondent
2! 1 SEP 1993	D L NIcHOLL and K W SKINNER

Counsel for the Applicant	D M J Bennett QC
V R Gray

Solicitors for the Applicant	Landerer & Company
Solicitors for First Respondent	Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Counsel for Second Respondent	S G Finch
Solicitors for Second Respondent	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Counsel for Third Respondent	R Cutler
Solicitors for Third Respondent	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing	14 September 1993
Date of Judgment	14 September 1993