Intelmail Explorenet Pty Limited v Vardanian

[2009] FCA 653

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Intelmail Explorenet Pty Limited v Vardanian
[2009] FCA 653

INTELMAIL EXPLORENET PTY LIMITED (ACN 088 887 889) and HEROS DILANCHIAN v AVO VARDANIAN and CONTROLMECH PTY LIMITED (ACN 075 681 373)

NSD1922 of 2008

MOORE J
12 JUNE 2009
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1922 of 2008

BETWEEN:

INTELMAIL EXPLORENET PTY LIMITED
(ACN 088 887 889)
First Applicant

HEROS DILANCHIAN
Second Applicant

AND:

AVO VARDANIAN
First Respondent

CONTROLMECH PTY LIMITED (ACN 075 681 373)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 JUNE 2009
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Applicants’ Notice of Motion filed on 10 June 2009 be dismissed.

2.The Applicants pay the Respondents’ costs of and incidental to the Applicants’ Notice of Motion.

3.The time for the Applicants to file and serve all the evidence on which it relies in the proceedings be extended to 19 June 2009.

4.Extend the time for the Cross-Claimants to file and serve their Evidence in Chief to 3 July 2009.

5.Vacate directions on 15 July 2009.

6.Liberty to apply on 2 days notice.

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

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1922 of 2008

BETWEEN:

INTELMAIL EXPLORENET PTY LIMITED
(ACN 088 887 889)
First Applicant

HEROS DILANCHIAN
Second Applicant

AND:

AVO VARDANIAN
First Respondent

CONTROLMECH PTY LIMITED (ACN 075 681 373)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	12 JUNE 2009
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the first applicant, Intelmail Explorenet Pty Limited, for leave to be represented by someone other than a solicitor:  see specifically Order 4 Rule 14 and also Order 9 Rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules.  The application is made on the footing that the company’s accountant, Mr Malouf, will hereinafter prosecute the proceedings on behalf of the company.  The respondents oppose the grant of leave.  They submitted, correctly, that in the ordinary course a company ought to be represented by a solicitor.  So much is recognised by both the rules of the Court and authorities dealing with applications such as this.

2. The application is made in circumstances where the proceedings were commenced by the company in December 2008.  Hearing dates have been set and the hearing of the matter is only a matter of weeks from today, on 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 July 2009.  Those hearing dates were fixed with considerable expedition on the application of the company, and the second applicant though supported by the respondents.

3. For reasons relating primarily to the health of the first respondent it is, in my opinion, necessary to maintain the dates that have been fixed.  The solicitors that were retained by the applicants to conduct this litigation have not been paid all moneys due to them and, as a consequence, have ceased to act…