Keikew Pty Ltd v Precision Mouldings

[1991] FCA 281

1 8 1 r / l q I

........ .... ...... . ........ ..,

JUDGMENT NO.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1 No. QG 26 of 1989

QUEENSLAND -- DISTRICT REGISTRY 1

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )	No. QG 26 of 1989
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN! KEIKEW PTY. LTD.

Applicant

AND ! PRECISION MOULDINGS

Respondent

MIHUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER:	27 MARCH 1991
WHERE MADE!	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The Second and third respondents pay the applicant $315,037.67.

2.    The second ahd third respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed.

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

. .

EDERAL COURT OF

AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL

, REQISTRY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QYEENSWD DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERA& DIVISION

BETWEEN: KEIKEW PTY. LTD.

Applicant

mDt PRECISION hlOULD$N@

Reapondent

5:oWf Pi~ctrs J.

m t BRISBANE

W : 27 MARCH 1991

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMkNT

This ib the trial of a suitr the nature of which a@p@ard froni the btatement of cleim, a dokimient that hae never been mended. he d&ages which have been claimed depend pilrkly on the dffidiivits tlhd Pdrtly on the oral evidence of

Mr. ~ilbert, given before nta.

I ani Batisfied that the material filed by the miitekizil, howetrer, do&i htit cdver the danlagee in toto. The	applicant @~thbliBhee lidbility in the rdkpondents; that	items in the list of dlimdded buffeted r e coveked by Mr. ~ilbert's evidence; biit sotne of thent seem to he not adeqdately fdreshddowed ih the pleading. I refer to items 10, 11, 12i
13b and 14.
Alf to item 14 , there is some evidence from Mr. Gilbert that he was toid by a manager of an engine company in

Mackay that the optimum fuel consumption was 100 litres per hour. It does not seem to me very clear what that was intended to convey, so I will not allow that. The other items come to $265,067.67 and appear to me to be adequately proved.

The second and third respondents have not appeared. The solicitors who formerly acted for the second and third respondente filed notices under the rules of ceasing to act on 18 September last year, by direction, apparently, of the Registrar. Some notification of the date of trial was sent to the second and thikd respondents at their last known address.

It appears to me that the proper course is to give jddgment in favour of the applicant against the second and third respondents in the sum of $265,037.67 and to order that the second and third respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be taxed. There will be added to the judgment a sum of $50,000 in respect of interest up to date.

I certify that this and the

preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Pincus.

-W-- --

Associate

Date '23 March \ l 4 1