Lopilato v D'Ambrosio

[1979] FCA 165

165 ,79 P--".e,'-

JUDGIWEIIT NO. ........ .... ..... .. .... . ..... :?I, -. p; ,- S

I N T H E F E D E R A L COURT O F A U S T R A L I A

G e n e r a l D i v i s i o r l No. 1 8 o f 1 9 7 8

BETWEEN :	F E L I X	L O P I L A T O	and
F.IARIC	L O P I L A T O

A p p l i c a n t s

AND : A N T O N I O D ' A M B R O S I O

D e f e n d a n t

K E A S O N S F O R JUDGT4ENT C o r a m : S M I T H E R S J .

CONNOR	J.
F R A N K 1	J .

6 A p r i l 1 9 7 9 .

FEDERAL COURT W

The a p p l i c a n t s , who were t h e d e f e n d a n t s b e l o w , a p p l y f o r

s p e c i a l l c a v e t o a p p e a l f rom a judgment o f t h c Supreme C o u r t o f t h e

A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y g i v e n by B l a c k b u r n C . J . on 2 7 O c t o b e r

1 9 7 8 . By N o t i c e o f Mot ion o f 1 7 November 1 9 7 8 t h e a p p l i c a n t s s o u g h t

s p e c i a l l e a v e f rom t h i s C o u r t t o a p p e a l a g a i n s t t h e judgment on t h e

s o l e g r o u n d t h a t e a c h o f two c e r t i f i c a t e s o f t h e R e g i s t r a r on which

t h e judgment was b a s e d c o n t a i n e d a f u n d a m e n t a l a c c o u n t i n g e r r o r . The

a p p l i c a n t s ' s o l i c i t o r was u n d e r a m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n t h a t i t was

n e c e s s a r y t o s e e k s p e c i a l l e a v e t o a p p e a l w h e r e a s t h e t r u e p o s i t i o n

was t h a t t h e r e was an a p p e a l a s o f r i g h t . Ilad t h e a p p l i c a n t s f i l e d

a N o t i c e o f Appea l on t h e day t h e y gave N o t i c e o f Mot ion i t would

have been i n t i m e and would have Sounded an a p p e a l a s o f r i g h t i n

t h e o r d i n a r y way.

The N o t i c e o f Mot ion a p p l y i n g f o r s p e c i a l l e a v e d i d n o t

c o n s t i t u t e a N o t i c e o f Appea l b u t i t d i d t e l l t h e r e s p o n d e n t t h a t

t h e a p p l i c a ~ l t s i n t e n d e d t o a p p e a l i f t h e l aw would s o p e r m i t , a s i n

f a c t i t d i d ; and i t d i d s t a t e t h e g round on which s u c h a p p e a l would

be b a s e d . I t a p p e a r s t o u s t h a t we s h o u l d h a v e r e g a r d t o t h e

s u b s t a n c e r a t h e r t h a n t h e fo rm and t h a t t h e a c t i o n t a k e n on b e h a l f

o f t h e a p p l i c a n t s t o s e e k a r e v i e w o f t h e judgment on t h e s t a t e d

g r o u n d c o n s t i t u t e s a s p e c i a l r e a s o n , w i t h i n t h e meaning o f 0 . 7 0 r . 6 ( 2 )

o f t h e High C o u r t R u l e s , f o r g i v i n g s p e c i a l l e a v e . We c o n s i d e r

t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t s s h o u l d have s p e c i a l l e a v e t o a p p e a l

on t h e fundament a 1 g round t h a t e a c h o f t h e R e g i s t r a r ' s c e r t i f i c a t e s c o n t a i n s a

a c c o u n t i n g e r r o r .

On t h e f o o t i n g t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t s ~ c r c g r a n t e d s p e c i a l

l e a v e t o a p p e a l J l r . K e l l y a p p l i e d f o r l c a v e t o i n c l u d e a f u r t h e r

g r o u n d i n t h e p r o p o s e d N o t i c e o f A p p e a l . T h i s a p p l i c a t i o n m i g h t

have been made t o t h e C o u r t h e a r i n g t h e a p p e a l b u t i t was o b v i o u s l y

c o n v e n i e n t t o h a v e t h e m a t t e r s e t t l e d a s e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e . The

g r o u n d i s t h a t t h e judgrrlent o f Blnck1)urn C . J . i s wrong i n l a w b e c a u s e

i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e two c e r t i f i c a t e s o f t h e R e g i s t r a r , i t i m p o s e s

upon t h e d e f e n d a n t s a j o i n t l i a b i l i t y t o [ ) a y c e r t a i n sums t o t h e

d&

p l a i n t i f f . The a p p l i c a n t s s u b m i t t c d ~ t h i s i s wrong b e c a u s e Fox J .

f o u n d t h a t i t was a t e r m o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e p l a i n t i f f

a n d the d e f e n d a n t s t h a t t h e c a p i t a l a n d p r o f i t s n n d / o r t h e l o s s e s

t h e r e o f would b e c o n t r i b u t e d , s h a ~ e d ;-tnii/or l io rnc c q u a l l y b y t h e

t h r e e p a r t n e r s . M r . K e l l y s u b m i t t e d t h a t a f i n d i n g o f j o i n t l i a b i l i t y

by t h e R e g i s t r a r was i r r e c o n c i l a b l e w i t h t h e s e f i n d i n g s o f Fox J .

He s u b m i t t e d f u r t h e r t h a t t h e e r r o r was a p p a r e n t on t h e f a c e o f t h e

r e c o r d a n d t h a t t h i s c o n s t i t u t e d a s p c > c i a l r e a s o n f o r g i v i n g s p e c i a l

l e a v e t o a p p e a l on t h i s g r o u n d , We t h i n k t h a t t h i s g r o u n d i s

d i s t i n c t l y a r g u a b l e .

h o w e v e r ,

I t i s a p p a r e n t , / t h a t t h i s g r o u n d o f a p p e a l f o r w h i c h l e a v e

i s now s o u g h t i s d i r e c t e d e s s e n t i a l l y t o f o u n d a new a n d s e p a r a t e

a t t a c k upon t h e c e r t i f i c a t e s upon rvllicli t h e j u d g ~ n e n t o f B l a c k b u r n C.J.

was f o u n d e d . But t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r s i n t h e c e r t i f i c a t e s , i f i n d e e d

t h e r e b e s u c h e r r o r s , w e r e d i s c e r n i b l e f r . o l ~ t h e t i m e t h e c e r t i f i c a t e s

w e r e g i v e n , i n t h e c a s e o f one f r o m 2 0 September 1 9 7 6 a n d i n t h e c a s e

o f t h e s e c o n d f rom 2 7 F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 8 .

I n t h e p r o c e e d i n g i n w h i c h t h e judgment o f B l a c k b u r n C . J .

was g i v e n t h e d e f e n d a n t s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y Mr. G a l l e n o f C o u n s e l

who a n n o u n c e d t h a t h e d i d n o t c o n s e n t t o j u d g m e n t . IIis Honour s a i d

t o M r . G a l l e n w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e o r d e r s s o u g h t by t h e r e s p o n d e n t

" t h o s e o r d e r s a n d d e c l a r a t i o n s a r e n o t c o n s e n t e d t o b u t n o t o p p o s e d ,

M r . G a l l e n b u t you d o n o t o f f e r a n y t h i n g i n o p p o s i t i o n t o them".

Mr. G a l l e n s a i d " I do n o t o f f e r a n y t h i n g i n o p p o s i t i o n " . However ,

i n Noventber 1 9 7 8 a n a p p l i c a t i o n was made t o B l a c k b u r n C . J . t o s e t

a s i d e t h e judgment on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e r c h a d h e e n a f u n d a m e n t a l

a c c o u n t i n g e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e R e g i s t r a r . T h i s a p p l i c a t i c n

came on f o r h e a r i n g on l 9 . January 1 9 7 9 . I t was r e j e c t e d . However,

b e f o r e t h i s , namely i n November 1 9 7 8 , t h e N o t i c e o f Mot ion f o r

special l c a v e t o a p p e a l wris f i l e d on the‘ I);lsi s t h a t f undamen ta l

a c c o u n t i n g e r r o r s h a d o c c u r r e d .

I n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h e C o u r t i s

w h e t h e r l e a v e t o i n c l u d e a g round i n t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d b e g r a n t e d

which would p e r m i t t h e a p p l i c a n t s t o r n i s c i n t h e a p p e a l what may

be c a l l e d t h e e r r o r s i n t h e c e r t i f i c a t e i n s o f a r a s t h e y c e r t i f i e d ,

.$f-LL.c&-t- la+c,.&* k

t o a j o i n t l i a b i l i t y o f t h e $ , -~n( l :qnt -s t o t h e *.:zt:ff. I t i s

n e c e s s a r y t o o b s e r v e t h a t t h e s u g g e s t i o n t- l lat t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e

c e r t i f i c a t e s was e r r o n e o u s h a s n e v e r been made i n any o f t h e v a r i o u s

p r o c e e d i n g s which h a v e o c c u r r e d . I t i s acknowledged t h a t t h e n o t i o n

t h a t t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e judgment migh t b e open t o

d i d n o t o c c u r

a t t a c k / t o any a d v i s e r o f t h e u n t i l 2 A p r i l 1 9 7 9 , t h e

day b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g o f t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n b e g a n .

To g i v e l e a v e t o a p p e a l on t h i s g round t h e r e f o r e i s q u i t e

a d i f f e r e n t p r o p o s i t i o n f rom g i v i n g l c n v c t o a p p e a l on t h e ground

r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e N o t i c e o f b lot ion o f 17 Novelither 1 9 7 8 . The C o u r t

i s a s k e d t o g i v e l e a v e t o a p p e a l on a p o i n t on which u n t i l . 2 A p r i l

1979 no p e r s o n had e v e n t h o u g h t o f a p p e a l i n g . The p l a i n t i f f had

judgment on 2 7 O c t o b e r 1 9 7 8 . I t was o b t a i n e d i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f

c o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t s and w i t h o u t h i s o p p o s i t i o n . A t t h e

e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e 2 1 d a y s a l l o w e d u n d e r t h e r u l e s t h e r e s p o n d e n t

had i n t h e words o f K%Tto , Wirldeyer and Owen J J . i n V i l e n i u s v .

H e i n e g a r - (1962) 36 A . L . J . R . 2 0 0 a t 2 0 1 ' l . . . . a v e s t e d r i g h t t o r e t a i n

t h e judgment u n l e s s t h i s C o u r t u n d e r Sub r u l e 2 o f r u l e 6 f o r s p e c i a l

l t

r e a s o n s s h o u l d g i v e l e a v e t o a p p e a l . . . . .

I n s o f a r a s Mr. K e l l y w i s h e s t o have l c a v e t o a p p e a l on t h e

j o i n t l i a b i l i t y a s p e c t i t i s a s t hough he w e r e making an a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r l e a v e t o a p p e a l f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on 2 A p r i l 1979 i n r e s p e c t o f a

judgment g i v e n on 2 7 O c t o b e r 1 9 7 8 . I t i s r r l an i fes t t h a t a p a r t y who

d e s i r e s t o c h a l l e n g e a judgment by a p p e a l s h o u l d h a v e r e g a r d t o t h e

r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o s u c h a c h a l l e n g c inc l u d i n g t h e t i r~ l c s s p e c i f i e d

f o r s o d o i n g . I t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t l i t i g a t i o n s h o u l d come t o an

e n d . I n t h i s c a s e t h e r e i s no r e a s o n why a n y p e r s o n g i v i n g r e a s o n a b l e

a t t e n t i o n t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a t t a c k i n g t h e judgment would n o t have

b e e n i n a p o s i t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e j o i n t l i a b i l i t y a s p e c t . But no

p e r s o n d i d c o n s i d e r i t , o r i f t h e y d i d , t h e y d i d n o t a c t t h e r e o n .

The r e s u l t i s t h a t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d s i n c e 1 8 November 1978 t h e

h a s h a d h i s - - e y - - j udgmen t . I t

c a n n o t i n o u r v iew b e a s p e c i a l r e a s o n f o r g i v i n g l e a v e t o a p p e a l t h a t

t h e a p p l i c a n t s m e r e l y f a i l e d t o r e a l i s e t h a t t h e r e was a p o s s i b l e

g round o f a p p e a l a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e j o i n t judgment and s o a l l o w e d

t h e tirrie f o r a p p e a l and a t l e a s t f o u r nlonths t h e r e a f t e r t o e x p i r e .

No r e a s o n i s g i v e n f o r s u c h f a i l u r e , w h i c h h a s e x i s t e d i n t h e c a s e

o f one c e r t i f i c a t e s i n c e S e p t e m k r 1976 anti i n t h e c a s e o f t h e o t h e r

s i n c e F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 8 . And d u r i n g t h a t t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' a d v i s e r s

wcrc f u l l y i n fo rn~cc l o f t h c 1 - c l c v a n t f a c t s : ~ n t l I : t t t c r l y a c t i v e l y

engaged i n c o n s i d e r i n g m a t t e r s which migh t j u s t i f y a n a t t a c k on t h e

c e r t i f i c a t e s .

111 a l l t h e c i r c u n ~ s t t r n c e s w e a r c s a t i s f i e d t h a t no s p e c i a l

r e a s o n e x i s t s f o r g i v i n g s p e c i a l l e a v e t o a p p e a l on t h e g round

r e l a t i n g t o j o i n t l i a b i l i t y .

I n o u r a p p r o a c h t o t h e p rob l em we h a v e h a d r e g a r d t o what

t r a n s p i r e d i n I b b i t s o n v . Dunlop T y r e S e r v i c e ( S t r a t h f i e l d ) P t y . L t d .

(1970)	4 4	A . L . J . R .	126 and V e l e n i u s	v .	I I e i n e g a r
- (1962) 36 A . L . J . R .

200 and Whi t ehouse H o t e l s P t y , L t d . v . I . ido Savoy P t y . L t d . (1974)

131 C . L . R . 333 . We s h o u l d a l s o s t a t e t h a t we r e g a r d t h e d e c i s i o n

i n - Measu re s v . McFadyen - (1910) 11 C . L . R . 7 2 3 a s i l l u s t r a t i v e o f t h e

v iew t h a t where an a p p l i c a t . i o n i s made w i t h i n t i m e f o r a r r e s t o f

judgment o r e q u i v a l e n t r e l i e f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e judgment was by

c o n s e n t i s n o t i n a11 c i r cu r r l s t ances a f : l t a l o b j e c t i o n t o s u c h an

a p p l i c a t i o n . I n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s i t i s t h e e l e m e n t o f t ime w h i c h

i s c r i t i c a l .

For t h e r e a s o n s a b o v e \$e r e j e c t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n by Mr.

K e l l y t o amend t h e N o t i c e o f Mot ion o f N o ~ c m l , ~ r 1 9 7 8 t o i n c l u d e as

a g r o u n d o f t h e p r o p o s e d a p p e a l t h e j o i n t a s p e c t o f t h e judgment o f

O c t o b e r 1 9 7 8 .