Mackman, G.M. v Stengold P/L

[1989] FCA 256

.//.a/+ ad2

JUDGMENT No ........ ........ . as6 v 84

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:  GERALD MARK M A C K M

Applicant

AND: STENGOLD PTY LTD

First Respondent

AND: SEMSTAR PTY LTD

Second Respondent

AND: KABWIND PTY LIMITED

Third Respondent

AND: WILLIM ALAN STONE

Fourth Respondent

AND: JOHN FUL-WOOD

Fifth Respondent

AND: PAUL THOMAS WENHAM, RONALD WILLIAM ARNOLD,

s	L
WHILEY, BRUCE KENNETH SIMMONS, GAVIN HOSKING

Sixth

MINUTES OF ORDER

NOTE :	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:  PINCUS J .

DATE OF ORDER:	18 MAY 1989
WHERE W E :	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    the matter be adjourned until Friday, 2 June 1989 at 9.15 a.m.;

2.    the costs of today's hearing be taxed and paid by the applicant.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	1

~ENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN: GERALD MARK MACKMAN

Applicant

AND: STENGOLD PTY LTD

First Respondent

AND: SEMSTAR PTY LTD

Second Respondent

AND: KABWIND PTY LIMITED

Third Respondent

AND: WILLIAM ALAN STONE

Fourth Respondent

AND: JOHN FUL-WOOD

Fifth Respondent

AND: PAUL THOMAS WENHAM, RONALD WILLIAM ARNOLD,

CHRISTOPHER DHU WHITE, NEVILLE JOHN DOUGLAS

WHILEY, BRUCE KENNETH SIMMONS, GAVIN HOSKING

Sixth Respondents

PINCUS J. 18 MAY 1989

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter there is an opposed application for an adjournment, made by Mr Allen. The case is one concerning the sale of an interest in a business, and it is common ground that the transaction was preceded by the making of some representations. Mr Boulton points to the fact that his material contains information suggesting that the statements made were

misleading - or some of them were.

The difficulty is that the matter was begun on 9 September 1988, and Mr Boulton has informed me that the reason the application has been made is that the fourth respondent's house was put up for sale last year. The matter came before me on 5 Hay last and it was then adjourned for hearing to today. The circumstances in which it has come about that the bulk of the material in support of the application was produced only yesterday was unclear, but it seems to me that it would be unfair to make even an interim order against the respondents, or any of them, in those circumstances; that is, since the sitaution which is sought to be restrained has been in existence, now, for five months, it would seem to me unreasonable for the Court to act precipitately, even in an interim way, on material which the respondents have had for less than 24 hours.

It may be that this will enable the fourth respondent to sell his house and abscond with the proceeds, but as against that, there must be some sort of discouragement of the notion that you can gain an advantage by presenting the other side with the bulk of your material on the eve of the hearing. In saying this I do not, of course, assume anything in the way of conscious unfairness, but it does look rather unfair to me, in the result.

Therefore, I have agreed with Hr Allen's submission, he

having produced no material, that the matter should be adjourned.

It will be adjourned to Friday, 2 June at 9.15 a.m.

I will order that the costs of today's hearing be taxed

and paid by the applicant. rc-tify that this and the 2 preceding

:c; are a truz copy of f ! ie reasons for

Igwcnt hcrein of His Honour

ir. Justice Pincus /A]-:	Associate
jated	1 ? / @ / ~ t y