FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lifetime Investments Pty Ltd v Commercial (Worldwide) Financial Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 637
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to secure re-delivery of documents delivered up pursuant to an Anton Pillar Order.
LIFETIME INVESTMENTS PTY LTD v COMMERCIAL (WORLDWIDE) FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD & ANOR
QUD 60 OF 2005
GREENWOOD J
25 MAY 2006
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 60 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
LIFETIME INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
APPLICANTAND:
COMMERCIAL (WORLDWIDE) FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 MAY 2006
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The solicitors for the Second Respondent shall have leave to take possession of all documents produced to the court pursuant to the order of his Honour Justice Spender on 15 November 2005 to be held in the custody and control of the solicitors for the Second Respondent pending the trial of the action or earlier order.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 60 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
LIFETIME INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
APPLICANTAND:
COMMERCIAL (WORLDWIDE) FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
GREENWOOD J
DATE:
25 MAY 2006
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Delivered Ex Tempore at 4.00 pm
On 28 April 2006, I pronounced orders pending trial in an application by Notice of Motion by the Applicant in the proceedings for a Mareva Order and other orders.
On 3 May 2006 I published reasons in relation to the orders made on 28 April 2006. In the course of the hearing of the application, Counsel for the Respondents to the application made a request for the return to the solicitors for the Second Respondent of all those documents delivered to the Federal Court pursuant to the order of his Honour Justice Spender on 15 November 2005.
Those documents comprise 7 boxes of documents filed in conjunction with the Affidavit of Mr Bruce Virgo which are the documents delivered into the possession of the independent supervising solicitors consequent upon execution of an Anton Pillar Order. In the course of the hearing of the primary application, I said that I would give consideration to the request for the return of the documents. On 28 April 2006 I also made directions orders by consent which require the Second Respondent to give discovery of documents by 4.00 pm 26 May 2006.
In order to enable discovery to take place in conformity with the timetable, the documents in question have been returned to the solicitors for the Second Respondent.
An order had been prepared making provision for the return of the documents delivered to the court in accordance with the order of Spender J. However, that order has not been formally made and accordingly I propose to dispose of the application for the return of the documents by making an order in the following terms in order to regularise the re-delivery of the documents to facilitate completion of discovery. The order is that the solicitors for the Second Respondent shall have leave to take possession of all documents produced to the court pursuant to the order of his Honour Justice Spender on 15 November 2005 to be held in the custody and control of the solicitors for the Second Respondent pending the trial of the action or earlier order.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood J. Associate:
Dated: 25 May 2006
Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Ece Mustafa-Ay Counsel for the Respondent: No appearance Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Peter Watts Date of Hearing: 25 May 2006 Date of Judgment: 25 May 2006
- AGLC
- Lifetime Investments Pty Ltd v Commercial (Worldwide) Financial Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 637
- Case
- [2006] FCA 637
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address included whether the respondent breached their fiduciary duties, whether the respondent made negligent misstatements, and whether the respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court had to interpret the nature and extent of the fiduciary duties owed by the respondent to the appellant, determine the standard of care required in the context of the financial advice provided, and assess whether the respondent’s conduct breached the statutory provisions against misleading or deceptive conduct.
In its judgment, the court found that the respondent did owe fiduciary duties to the appellant. It further held that the respondent had indeed breached these duties. The court also found that the respondent made negligent misstatements that caused the appellant to suffer damages. Regarding the statutory claim, the court determined that the respondent's conduct did amount to misleading or deceptive conduct. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the appellant on all counts. The court ordered the solicitors for the second respondent to take possession of all documents produced to the court in the interim proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The solicitors for the Second Respondent shall have leave to take possession of all documents produced to the court pursuant to the order of his Honour Justice Spender on 15 November 2005 to be held in the custody and control of the solicitors for the Second Respondent pending the trial of the action or earlier order.
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
Established by: GREENWOOD J
Full text does not contain this section.