Jordan Heights Pty Ltd v H & H Manifacturing Pty Ltd

[1988] FCA 840

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. VG290 of 1986
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN: JORDAN HEIGHTS PTY.

LIMITED

Applicant

AND: H. & H. MANUFACTURING

PTY. LTD. and BARRY

ARTHUR HAWKE

Respondents

CORAM :  Jenkinson J.

PLACE	:	Melbourne
DATE:	July,  18 1988

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Motion for judgment founded upon a compromise of the

proceeding in this Court.

1987 (Vic. ) which commenced on that date.

The delay in giving judgment has been occasioned by the

fact that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a motion of this kind was under consideration by a Full Court. The Full Court

has now decided, by a majority, in Darling Downs Investments Pty.

Limited v . Elwood, (Q G10 of 1985, unreported, judgment 21 April

1988) that there is jurisdiction in this Court. It may well be that, since 1 July 1988, jurisdiction has been conferred by section 4 ( 1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act

The other question is whether, jurisdiction being ,

available, it should be exercised in this proceeding or whether the parties should be left to institute a fresh proceeding. Considerations relevant to the exercise of the discretion are stated by Smith J. in Roberts v. Gippsland Agricultural and Earthmoving Contracting Company Pty. Ltd. 119561 VG 555 at

561-567.

The terms of settlement in this proceeding do give some

cause for concern that the Court may become involved in the

administration of the details of a decree for specific

performance. On the other hand, the respondents have ceased to

resist the motion and the matters	which might remain for working
out in the course	of administration of a decree for specific

performance are not, so far as one can tell by reading the terms
of settlement, of great complexity. I have decided that, on

balance, I should accede to the motion.

The orders will be:

1.	that the respondents pay to the	applicant
the sum of $30,000;

2.    that the respondents pay to the applicant its costs of the motion of which notice was filed 8 December 1987 to and including this day and the costs of entering this order;

3 . that further consideration of the said

motion be adjourned.

I should say that one of the terms of the compromise -

. that is to say, clause 7 thereof - had been carried out, put into

performance, by an order of Mr. Justice Gray, made by consent of .

counsel for the parties, on 20 July 1987. Accordingly, I make no

order concerning the claims of the applicant or the cross-claims

of the respondents, since Mr. Justice Gray has already ordered

that claim and cross-claim be struck out.

I certify that this and the 2 preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of

Honourable	the Mr. Justice
Jenkinson.

Associate

Dated:  18 July, 1987