been provided wi th an agrccd s ta tement of fac ts Inc luding
an acceptance on both
s i d e s
o f
some
o f
the ev ldence of
Mr. Jacobs , who has
g iven
ev idence .
These
fac ts
a re
mtenclcd
t o be
f i n a l and bcyond
subsequent
challengc
s o
f a r
as
the);
bea r
on
t h e p r e s e n t m a t t e r .
The
q u e s t i o n , s h o r t l y s t a t e d ,
1s whether
Mr.
and
Mrs.
O 'Br icn werc par t lcs
to
the
l e a s e
o f
the premlses
by
The S h c l l Company of Australia Llmited,
which
i s
a t t h e
c e n t r e
o
f
t h e
p r e s e n t
l i t i g a t i o n .
They
were
(and
a re)
t h e
o n l y d i r c c t o r s
of
t h e
Company.
The
l e a s e was
f o r a
tcrm 01 t h r c c y e a r s
and
t a k e s
t h e rorm o f a deed.
In
thc
placc
where
thc
document
i s
cxecuted I t seems,
plainly
enough,
to
have
been
cxccuted
by t h e names - or
company
and not by
the O 'Br iens ; a l though
the i r
what
I t a k c
t o b e
t h e i r
namcs
-
appea r
t oge the r
wi th somc t h a t p a r t i c u l a r p a g e .
o t h e r
namc
a t t h e b o t t o m r ~ g h t - h a n d c o r n e r
o f
The
s e a l o f
t h e
company
i s a f f i x e d and
I
t a k e
and a f f i x e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h c A r t i c l e s o f A s s o c i a t i o n o f
i t has
no t been a rgued o thc rb i se
-
t h a t i t
i s
It
-
t h e
company.
The
s e a l oE
t h e company,
w i t h l n l t l a l s
whlch
appear t o be
those of
the pcrsons
who
a t t e s t e d t h e s e a l
01 t h e company
on the page
to which
I
have
j u s t r e f e r r e d ,
appea r s
a l so
on
t h e
o t h c r
p a g e s
o f
t h c
l e a s e .
On some of
thosc
pagcs
,
perhaps
on
a l l o f
t hem,
the re
a re o the r
i n i t i a l s which
I
t ake
to
be
those
oE
one of
the
persons
concerncd wi th
the execut ion
O E t h e
document
by
t h c S h e l l
Company.
I n
t h e
commenccment
o f t h e
l e a s e
I t i s s a l d
t h a t t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e l e a s c a r e
Thc
S h e l l
Company
of
A u s t r a l i a
ancl
t h e
l e s s e e ,
whose
name
and address
i s s e t
ou t
I n t h e
f i r s t
schedu le .
The
rc
t hen
a r i s c s
a
problem
becausc a longs ic lc
the
typcd or pr in ted dcs lgna t ion " lessee"
i n t h e
f i r s t
schedu le
the re
1s
t h c numher
1 i n m a n u s c r i p t
and
fo l lowing
tha t
appears
the
namc
o f t h c company
J . and
Id.
O'Br ien
Enterpr
i
ses
P ty .
L imi ted .
Unrlcr
t h a t
t h c
number
2
has been wr i t t en in and the
namcs
O F
John
James
O'Bricn and Elonlca Allce O'Brien are set out beside
I
t
.
The
agreed
s ta tement
o f
Facts
says
that
\<hen
t h e i r
names
were
s c t o u t t h e
word
" d l r e c t o r s "
was
p u t i n
b racke t s unde r
the i r
names
b u t
somebocly unkno\cn
has s ince
s t r u c k
t h a t o u t .
No
suhmission
i s made
s imply on
t h e
b a s i s
o
f
t h a t
a l t c r a t l o n .
I t secms
t h a t
I
shoulcl
construe
t h e document
a s i f
t h e word was
s t i l l t h e r e .
The way
i n which i t came a h o u t
t h a t
t h c
i i g u r e s
1 and
2
\ \ ' e re
lnser
tcd
and
the var ious
namcs
p u t a l o n g s i d e
thcm
1s expla lncd i n t h e e n d e n c e o f
Mr.
Jacohs
and
i t
seems
p l a i n
from
t h a t e v i d e n c e
t h a t
t h e r c
\\-as
no
i n t e n t i o n
on
t h e p a r t o f
t h e S h e l l
Company
o r
on
t h e p a r t
o f
t h c
O 'Br i ens
tha t
t hc O 'Br l ens
l i e r e
to be pa r ty
t
o
t h e a g r e c -
ment as we l l as t h c Company.
I t scems t o me,
l o o k i n g
a
t
t h e document as a whole
and
taking
somc
a s s i s t a n c c
Crom
the ev idence
o f
Mr.
J a c o b s ,
t h a t
t h c p a r t i c s w e r e
The
S h e l l Company
o f
A u s t r a l i a and
J .
and
M.
O'Br ien Enter -
prises
Pty.
J . imlted,
and
thc
O'Briens
were
not
par t ies
t o
i t .
This conclus ion
i s
suppor ted
by
r c f c r e n c e t o t h c
way i n which
the Shel l
Company
and
the
Company
t h c r c a I t e r
a c t e d ,
some
d e t a i l s o f w h ~ c h a r e s e t o u t
i n
t h e a g r e e d
s t a t c m e n t
o
f
f a c t s .
If
t h c
document
were
i t s e l f
r e g a r d e d
as suf Elclent ly ambjauous
o r
uncertain
as
t o
t h e q u e s t l o n
of
p a r t i c s
I
would
r ega rd
thc ev idcnce
o f
subsequent
con-
duc t
as
b e i n g c o n c l u s i v e
i n f a v o u r
o f
t h c v i c w t h a t
t h e
company was a p a r t y and Mr. and Mrs. O'Rricn
were
not .
I t
seems t o mc, however,
that
thc
documcnt
j t s c l f , w i t h o u t
any
e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c c ,
shows
a n
i n t e n t i o n
t h a t
i t
bc
the
Company which I S t h c lessce and no t Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien.
I
am
t h e r e r o r e
o f
t h e v i e w
t h a t
t h e p a r t i e s
t o
t h c
l e a s e a r e
The
S h e l l Company
and
J .
and M.
O'Brien
En tc rp r l se s P ty . L imi t ed and
tha t
Mr. and hlrs, O'Brien
werc
n o t
p a r t i e s
t o
i t .
I
u n d e r s t a n d
i n
t h a t
s l t u a t l o n
i t
I S
- 4
agreed judgment shou ld go for the O'Briens and I ordcr
that Judgment be entered accordingly.
i
i
i
I N TFIC FEDER.AL
C O U R T OF AUSTRALIA
)
J NO. G 133
of
1 9 ~ 0
NCII' SOUTH
I\'ALCS
DISTRICT REGISTRY
)
No. c
of
1
3. 6 N. O ' B R I E N EIiTEKPRISES PTY.
LIlrlITEU
Applicant
THE SHELI, COhlPAh'Y OF AUSTRA1,IA IJIhlITEIJ
Respondent?
THE SIIRLL CObIPXNY Or .AUSTRALIA J,IhIITEI)
C r o s s
C l a m a n t
J .
6 N.
O ' B R I E N
EKTERPRISES
PTY.
LI>!ITEJ),
J O H N JAYES
O'BKIEI ' ;
AND
FIONICA
!\LICE
O ' B R I E N
Cross
Respondcnts
Coram:
Fox J
5
June
1952.
EX TEMPORE JUDGlrIENT
Counscl f o r Mr. and Mrs.
O 'Br ien
have
asked
t h a t
J u d g m e n t
be
e n t e r c d
f o r
t h e m
w i t h
c o s t s ,
and
t h i s
a p p l l c a t i o n h a s b c e n r e s i s t e d
substantially
on
two
g rounds .
Onc
i s t h a t i t i s s a l d t h a t
t h e y
should
n o t
h a v c b e e n s e p a r a t e l y
r e p r e s e n t c d b u t
s h o u l d
have
h a d ,
s o
f a r
as
c o u n s e l
a n d
s o l i c l t o r
are
conce rned ,
one
r ep -
r e s e n t a t l o n w i t h t h c
Company
o f
w h i c h t h e y a r c d l r e c t o r s .
They
have
I n f a c t
had.
one
r c p r e s c n t a t l o n s o
far
as
t h e l r
solicitor
I S
c o n c c r n e d .
T h e y
w c r e
p u t
o n
n o t l c e
t h a t
t h c r e
may
be
somc
o b j e c t i o n t o
t h e i r h a v i n g , 1 n t h a t
e v e n t ,
s e p a r a t c
r e p r c s e n t a t i o n
by
counse l .
The
o t h e r
ground,
lshich
goes
to
par
t
only
of
thc
costs ,
i s
t h a t
t he app l i ca t ion wh ich
I
have
j u s t hcard
and
dcterrnlncd
should have bcen
made
a t
a n e a r l i e r t i m e .
Like most questions
o i c o s t s ,
I
t h i n k
t h e
p o s i t i o n
i s
n o t e n t i r e l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d i n t h e s e n s e
t h a t
t h e r c
i s
s o m e t h i n g
t o
b
e
s a i d
on
ho
th
s ides .
IIow-
ever , one
i s bound
t o be
in f luenced by
t h c
common
p r a c t i c e
and
unde r s t and ing
i n
t hese
ma t t e r s .
Thc
o r d i n a r y
r u l e
-
as i s agrecd
-
i s t h a t ,
i f a n
a p p l i c a n t
o r
p l a i n t i f f
j o ins
s eve ra l
r c sponden t s
o r
defendants ,
they
a
rc
p r tn ia
f a c l c e n t i t l c d t o s c p a r a t c r e p r c s e n t a t i o n
by
c o u n s e l l f
no t
by
s o l l c i t o r s . T h e r c
a r e
somc
we l l
known
excep t ions
t o
t h i s r u l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e e q u l t a b l c j a r i s d i c t l o n ,
bu t
t hose a re excep t ions wh ich p roceed upon spec la l con-
s i d c r a t i o n s
and
do
n o t a s s i s t
i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e .
I t
IS
t h e f a c t
t h a t
Mr.
and Mrs. O 'Br ien
a re
the on ly
two
d i r e c t o r s
o f
t h e
company,
and
t h a t much
of
t hc
r e l cvan t
conduc t
-
perhaps a l l o f
i t -
xh lch i s com-
p la incd of has bcen car r icd out
on
beha l f
oE
t h e
company
by Mr.
O 'Br i cn ,
hc
ac t ing
a s
agen t
fo r
i t .
The
s i t u a t i o n o f
Mrs.
O'Bricn
i n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n
i s n o t c l e a r .
I t
IS
d o u b t l e s s
t r u e ,
t o o ,
t h a t
t h e
same
evidence
f o r t h e
r e sponden t ,
t he
c ros s -c l a iman t ,
i ncu lpa te s
bo
th
t hc
company and
the
O'Briens
-
i n o t h e r w o r d s ,
t h e e v i d c n c e
i s probably
thc
same,
o r
v i r t u a l l y
s o .
Holsever,
t h a t d o c s n o t c o n c l u d e t h e m a t t e r .
The
f a c t 1s
t h a t
t h e O ' B r l e n s w e r c s p e c i a l l y
~
o
~
n
c
d
a f t e r t h e c a s c f i r s t
came
i n t o
t h e C o u r t
f o r h e a r i n g ,
and some s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d
a l l e g a t i o n s I n t h e
amended
p1 eadlngs wcre
t o
t he i r
conduc t
as d ~ s t i n c t
from
t h a t
o
f
t h e
company.
I t secms t h a t a t
t h a t
s t a g e
t h e i r
s e p a r a t e
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
was
contemplated.
One
a l l e g a t i o n made
a g a i n s t them
i s a
s e r i o u s one
invo lv ing
s p e c i f i c
c r i m i n a l
b e h a v i o u r .
I t
seems
t o me
i n a l l
t h e
c i rcumstances
tha t
the
judgment
should
car
ry
cos
ts
.
The
next ques t ion , which
I
a l s o f i n d n o t
t o
bc
e n t i r e l y c l c a r
o f
s o l u t i o n ,
i s lchether
somc
a c t l o n
should not
have hcen
taken
on h c h a l 1 o f Mr.
and Mrs.
O ' B r l e n a t
an
c a r l l e r s t a g e ,
t o reduce
the
amount o i
cos t s
t ha t
were
i nvo lved .
An
example
glvcn
1s
t h a t
t h e y
could
a t
an ca r ly s t age have sough t
t o
be
dismisscd
from
t h e s u i t .
I
am
n o t
c l e a r
t h a t
t h i s
would
have
becn
an
a p p r o p r i a t c c o u r s e
i n
t h e C i r c u m s t a n c e s .
The
o t h e r a c t i o n
would have becn one
taken
in
r e l i a n c e
upon
Order
2 9
01
t h c
r u l e s
o r
t h l s
C o u r t .
I
u n d e r s t a n d
t h a t
t h e r c
i s
a
s l m l l a r r u l e
i n t h e
ncw
r u l c s
o f
t h e Suprcmc
Court .
That
perhaps
would
have
cnabled
t h e i s s u c
t o b e i s o l a t e d a t
an
c a r l y s t a g c b u t
no
a p p l i c a t i o n was
made
on
e i t h e r s i d e t h a t
such
R
coursc be
f o l l o m d .
The
p r e s e n t
a p p l i c a t i o n
i s p robab ly
bcs t
regarded
as one
made
under
Ordcr
2 9 ;
o the rwise
i t
should
be
seen a s
an app l i ca t ion
fo r
j udgmen t ,
made
a t an
unusual
s tage .
The
p a r t i e s
Icere
of
coursc
agreed
that
I t should be
heard and declded
when
i t was, and on t h e
m a t e r i a l s p r e s e n t e d .
On the whole I am 01
t h e o p i n l o n
t h a t
t h e r e
should
be
no
r educ t ion
In t h e
c o s t s
whlcll
the
O'Briens
would
normally
get .
I
ordcr
tha t
judgment
be
en te red
f o r them
n t h c o s t s .
Details
AGLC
J & M O'Brien Enterprises Pty Ltd v Shell Company of Australia [1982] FCA 97
Case
[1982] FCA 97
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved an application by John James O'Brien and Monica Alice O'Brien for judgment against The Shell Company of Australia Limited. The application was made after the applicant, J. and M. O'Brien Enterprises Pty Ltd, had led its evidence-in-chief and after the respondent, The Shell Company of Australia Limited, had adduced its evidence in defence and on the cross-claim. The application was made by agreement of all the parties and it was considered convenient that it be made at that time. The issue before the court was whether Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien were parties to the lease of the premises by The Shell Company of Australia Limited. The court held that Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien were not parties to the lease and that the parties to the lease were The Shell Company and J. and M. O'Brien Enterprises Pty Ltd.
The court also considered whether the O'Briens should have been separately represented by counsel and whether the application should have been made at an earlier time. The court held that the O'Briens were entitled to separate representation by counsel and that there should be no reduction in the costs which they would normally get. The court ordered that judgment be entered for the O'Briens with costs.