J & M O'Brien Enterprises Pty Ltd v Shell Company of Australia

[1982] FCA 97

IN THE	TEDER.\L	COURT	OF AUST’r’AJ.IA	)
1 N o . G 334 o f 1 9 8 0

NEW SOUTH	WALES	D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y	)	No.	G	11 of	1g81
GENERAJ.	D I V I S I O N

J . 6 M. O ’ B R I E N E N T E R P R I S E S P T Y .

L I M I T E D	-
Applicant

THE	SI-IELI. COW’AhY	OF	h U S T R 9 L I A	L I b T I T E D
-

R e s p o n d e n t

THE SHELL CO>IPANY OF AUSTRALIA J ,TMITED

-

C r o s s - C l a i m a n t

J . 6 M. O ‘ B R I E N E K T E R P R I S E S P T Y .

L I P I I T E D ,	JOHN	JA?lES	O‘BRIXA’	ASD MONICA
-

A L I C E O ‘ U R I E N

C r o s s - R e s p o n d e n t s

O R D E R

JUDGE >LAKING ORDER:  Fox J

D:\TE	OF ORDER:	3 June 1 9 8 2
IVHERE	L \ D E :	Sydney

T h e C o u r t o r d e r s t h a t : -

1. Judgment b e e n t e r e d Cor J . J . O ’ B r i e n and F1.A.

O ’ B r i e n l i l t h c o s t s .

I h THE FEDERAL COUIU OF AUSTRALIA )

No. G 134 o f 1980

IiEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY , ) N o . G 11 oi 1 ~ 8 1

GEKERAL DIVISIOK 5

J . 8 h l . @ ' B R I E Y ENTLRPKISES PTY.

LIMITED -

A p p l ~ c a n t

THE SHELL COlrlPAKY OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Rcsponclent

THE SHELL COFIPAh'Y OF AUSTRALIA L I h I I T E D

Cross-Claimant

J .	8	M.	O ' U R I E N	ENTERPRISES	PTY.
L I M I T E D ,	J O H U	JAlICS	O'URIES	A N I )	hlOYiICA
-

A L I C E O ' B R I E N

Cross-Rcsponclcnts

Coram:  Fox J

1. June 1982.

   EX TEMPORE JUUGhIEKT

This 1s an app l l ca t ion by two o f the c r o s s -

r c sponden t s i n case numbers G 134 o f 1 9 8 0 and G 11 o f

19S1, namcly, John J a m s O ' B r i e n a n d lrlonica M i c e

O'Brlen, f o r judgment aga ins t the c ross -c la lmant , 'I'hc

S h c l l Company o f Aus t r a l i a L imi t ed .

Thc a p p l l c a t i o n comcs a f t e r t h e a p p l i c a n t i n

cases numbercd G 134 of 1980 and G 11 o f 1981, being

a l s o a c ross - rcspondent i n b o t h c a s e s , t h a t i s , J . and

b l . O'Br ien Enterpr i ses P ty . L iml tcd , has l cd i t s evidence-

- i n - c h l e f ; and a f t e r t h e r e s p o n d e n t The S h e l l Company of

A u s t r a l i a L i m i t e d , has adduced i t s ev idence in de fcnce

and on t h e c r o s s - c l a i m .

'The a p p l l c a t l o n i s made a t t h i s s t a g e by

agrccment of a l l t h c p a r t i c s a n d , o f c o u r s c , i t 1s

emincnt	ly	convenient	tha t	it be made a t no l a t e r p o i n t	of
time .

F o r the purpose o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , I havc

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 .