FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lamond (No 3) [2017] FCA 610
File number: SAD 333 of 2016 Judge: BESANKO J Date of judgment: 30 May 2017 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of applications relating to the order in which the Court hears related proceedings – where two alternative courses of action proposed – where winding up application requires consideration of material relevant to a proposed substantive proceeding – where prospect of delay with the proposed substantive proceeding due to contested leave application – where considerable overlap between the issues in both related proceedings – where both proceedings would require lengthy trials – where possibility of inconsistent findings and estoppels whichever course is adopted – where winding up application is reasonably arguable and should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 237, 459A, 461
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 7.01
Cases cited: Guerinoni v Argyle Concrete & Quarry Supplies Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 170; (2000) 34 ASCR 469
In the matter of Mudgee Dolomite & Lime Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1933
Lamond (No 2) [2017] FCA 548
Malos v Malos [2003] NSWSC 118; (2003) 44 ASCR 511
Morgan v WorkCover Corporation (2013) 118 SASR 297; [2013] SASCFC 139
Peter Exton & Anor v Extons Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] VSC 14
Traditional Values Management Limited (in liq) v Taylor & Ors [2012] VSC 299
Date of hearing: 26 May 2017 Registry: South Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 13 Counsel for the Prospective Applicant: Mr C Munt Solicitor for the Prospective Applicant: Scanlon Carroll Pty Ltd Counsel for the Prospective First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Respondents: Mr R Ross-Smith Solicitor for the Prospective First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Respondents: DeGaris Lawyers Counsel for the Prospective Second and Fifth Respondents: Mr T Duggan SC with Mr A Bullock Solicitor for the Prospective Second and Fifth Respondents: Cowell Clark Commercial Lawyers Counsel for the Prospective Seventh and Ninth Respondents: The Prospective Seventh and Ninth Respondents did not appear ORDERS
SAD 333 of 2016 BETWEEN: PETER COLIN LAMOND
Prospective Applicant
AND: GREEN TRIANGLE LIVESTOCK & REAL ESTATE PTY LTD ACN 600 378 489
Prospective First Respondent
OWEN ROBERT PETTINGILL
Prospective Second Respondent
CHRISTOPHER JOHN MANSER (and others named in the Schedule)
Prospective Third Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 MAY 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Amended Interlocutory Application dated 24 May 2017 be refused.
2.Subject to any further order made by the trial judge, Mr Lamond’s application for leave in SAD 93 of 2017 be listed for hearing immediately following the hearing of the winding up application.
3.To the extent possible, the hearing of the applications referred to in paragraph 2 be expedited with an estimated hearing time of 10 days.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal…
Continue reading Lamond (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lamond (No 3) [2017] FCA 610
- Case
- [2017] FCA 610
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court identified the central legal issue as the determination of the most effective sequence for hearing the winding-up application and the application for leave, given the significant overlap in the issues and the potential for inconsistent findings or estoppels. The Court considered that the winding-up application was reasonably arguable and needed to be addressed promptly to avoid unnecessary delays. Additionally, the court acknowledged the complexity and length of both proceedings, emphasizing the need for a streamlined process to minimize the risk of inconsistent outcomes.
The Court decided that the winding-up application should be heard first to ensure that it was dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The application for leave, however, was to be scheduled immediately following the winding-up application, subject to the trial judge’s discretion. The Court also directed that the hearing of these applications be expedited, aiming for a total hearing time of approximately ten days where feasible. This decision aimed to balance the urgency of the winding-up application with the need to avoid unnecessary delays in the substantive proceeding.
The Court’s final orders included the refusal of certain orders sought in the amended interlocutory application. It mandated that Mr Lamond’s application for leave be listed for hearing immediately after the winding-up application and directed that both hearings be expedited, with a target duration of ten days. These orders were intended to manage the proceedings efficiently while safeguarding the rights of the parties involved.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Amended Interlocutory Application dated 24 May 2017 be refused.
2. Subject to any further order made by the trial judge, Mr Lamond’s application for leave in SAD 93 of 2017 be listed for hearing immediately following the hearing of the winding up application.
3. To the extent possible, the hearing of the applications referred to in paragraph 2 be expedited with an estimated hearing time of 10 days.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.