M. M. International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Aerial Consolidated Transport Ltd

[2018] ACTCA 70

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

M. M. International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Aerial Consolidated Transport Ltd

Citation:

[2018] ACTCA 70

Hearing Date:

21 November 2018

DecisionDate:

21 November 2018

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [5]

Catchwords:

APPEALS – Application for Leave to Appeal from Interlocutory Judgment – No appearance from applicant – whether proceedings should be adjourned – company in liquidation – whether application should be dismissed

Parties:

M. M. International (Australia) Pty Ltd (Applicant)

Aerial Consolidated Transport Ltd (First Respondent)

Aerial Capital Group Ltd (Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

No appearance (Applicant)

J Raine (Respondents)

Solicitors

Griffin Legal (Respondents)

File Number:

ACTCA 37 of 2018

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             Supreme Court of the ACT

Before:  Elkaim J

Date of Decision:         13 July 2018

Case Title:  M. M. International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Aerial Consolidated Transport Ltd

Court File Number:      SCA 71 of 2016

BURNS J

1. In this matter, there was an email sent to my office from the wife of Mr Hussain who was to appear on behalf of M. M. International (Australia) Pty Ltd, saying that he had at late notice been required to travel to Bangladesh because of illness in his family, and requesting that these proceedings be adjourned.

1. Ordinarily one would adjourn proceedings in the circumstances set out in that email, but all that would do is to increase the costs to the respondents, and for no good purpose. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to be done. There is no point in adjourning the present proceedings, because there is nothing that Mr Hussain can add in any way to the orders or the direction that this Court can take with respect to the matter.

1. I will dismiss the application as the company is currently in liquidation, if in fact it has not been completely deregistered.

1. Mr Hussain has no entitlement to appear on behalf of the company. As I indicated a moment ago, in circumstances which are outlined in the email from Mr Hussain's wife to the Court, I would ordinarily have adjourned the proceedings to enable Mr Hussain to return to Australia and to participate in the proceedings. However, in the circumstances that apply with respect to this company, there would simply be no point in doing so, as all that would result is an increase in costs to the respondents, in circumstances where it is highly unlikely that they would be able to recover those costs.

1. For that reason, I have declined the application for adjournment made on behalf of Mr Hussain, and I have dismissed the proceeding.

I certify that the preceding five [5] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Burns.

Associate:

Date: 17 June 2019