Maxwell-Smith v S and E Hall Pty Ltd

[2002] FCAFC 198

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Maxwell-Smith v S & E Hall Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 198

INGE MAXWELL-SMITH & ANOR v S & E HALL PTY LTD
N85 OF 2002

HEEREY, LINDGREN AND MERKEL JJ
31 MAY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N85 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	INGE MAXWELL-SMITH EUGENE MAXWELL-SMITH APPELLANTS
AND:	S & E HALL PTY LTD RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	HEEREY, LINDGREN AND MERKEL JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	31 MAY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeals are dismissed.

2.The appellants pay the costs of the repspondent including reserved costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N85 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	INGE MAXWELL-SMITH EUGENE MAXWELL-SMITH APPELLANTS
AND:	S & E HALL PTY LTD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	HEEREY, LINDGREN AND MERKEL JJ
DATE:	31 MAY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT:

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellants appeal against orders of Allsop J made on 25 January 2002 which:

   (1)dismissed the appellants’ applications against the respondent in N895 and N896 of 2001;

   (2)dismissed the appellants’ applications N7225 and N7226 to set aside a bankruptcy notice dated 26 March 2001; and

   (3)ordered the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs.

2. The background to this matter involves the construction of a dwelling house by the respondent builder for the appellants.  The complex history of the disputes and litigation between the parties are set out in his Honour’s judgment.  The appellants’ submissions to us essentially repeated the submissions made by them to his Honour.

3. In our view his Honour was plainly correct, for the reasons he gave, in holding that the appellants are attempting to re-litigate matters that have been determined against them by the Consumer Claims Tribunal and courts of competent jurisdiction in New South Wales.

4. The appeals will be dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:            19 June 2002

Counsel for the Appellants:	The appellants appeared in person
Solicitor for the Appellants:
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr E Petersen
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sautelle & White
Date of Hearing:	31 May 2002
Date of Judgment:	31 May 2002