Law Society v Connolly

[1999] NSWSC 10

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:	LAW SOCIETY v CONNOLLY [1999] NSWSC 10 revised - 24/08/99
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	COMMON LAW
FILE NUMBER(S):	10027/99
HEARING DATE(S):	8 January 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	8 January 1999
PARTIES :	THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v JOHN MITCHELL CONNOLLY
JUDGMENT OF:	Bryson J at 1

COUNSEL :	N/A
SOLICITORS:	PLAINTIFF: RAYMOND JOHN COLLINS DEFENDANT: STEWART CUDDY & MOCKLER
CATCHWORDS:	Practice and procedure; Mareva relief not appropriate on urgent application; proceedings adjourned; no question of principle
DECISION:	SEE PARAGRAPH 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

CLOSED COURT

BRYSON J

FRIDAY 8 JANUARY 1999

10027/99
THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v JOHN MITCHELL CONNOLLY

JUDGMENT (On the adjournment application)

1 HIS HONOUR : I propose to grant the defendant's application for an adjournment and the adjourned date will be Thursday next 14 January 1999.
2 In deciding to adjourn the proceedings I have regard to the fact that proceedings were commenced only this afternoon, that the defendant was given no more than two or three hours' notice of them and that there is a considerable body of material offered in evidence in support which would be difficult to assimilate and respond to.
3 I also have regard to the time scale of the events and development of the Law Society's position; the significant events appear to have happened over a period of about six months from April 1998. The Law Society's investigator first attended the defendant's office on 3 December and reported on 6 January and the Society's council resolved to proceed today. When I look at this time scale, it does seem appropriate to give the defendant some days to consider his position before making responses on the exact terms of which a great deal may turn.
4 The defendant also offers an undertaking which I must say protects only a small part of the potential losses, but the undertaking should be accepted. I do not see any continuing or flagrant situation or anything which should make me fear significant loss in the time scale of a further few days.
5 The Law Society's solicitor also asks for Mareva orders restraining the defendant's dealing with property and requiring him to make discovery on affidavit of his affairs.
6 To my mind, it is doubtful whether the Court has power to make such orders in a case such as this where the principal application is for the appointment of a receiver. My doubts stem from the observation that it cannot be ancillary to giving full effect to an order for the appointment of a receiver that there should be interim Mareva relief and discovery of property. This is not a case where there is any claim for judgment for a sum of money which could be significantly affected by dispersal of the defendant's assets.
7 The orders are:
1. I note and accept the undertaking of the defendant by his solicitor that the defendant will not, during the period of the adjournment, deal with any of the W J Doyle and Co Pty Limited moneys through the St George Bank accounts.
2. The Summons is filed in court returnable forthwith.
3. Notice of Appearance is filed.
4. The Summons is adjourned on the defendant's application to Thursday 14 January 1999 at 10 am before the Vacation Judge.
5. Costs of today reserved.
I hereby certify that paragraphs 1-7 are the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice John Bryson

Dated 28 January 1999. Associate.

Last Modified: 08/24/1999