Mhanna v Sovereign Capital Ltd

[2007] FCA 1279

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mhanna v Sovereign Capital Ltd [2007] FCA 1279

JOHN MHANNA AND ORS v SOVEREIGN CAPITAL LTD

NSD908 OF 2004

EMMETT J

10 AUGUST 2007

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 908 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

JOHN MHANNA
First Plaintiff

EMAN SHONODA
Second Plaintiff

HIGHWATCH PTY LIMITED
(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
(ACN 101 120 839)
Third Plaintiff

AND:

SOVEREIGN CAPITAL LTD
Defendant

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding be dismissed.

2.The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding.

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	NSD 908 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

JOHN MHANNA
First Plaintiff

EMAN SHONODA
Second Plaintiff

HIGHWATCH PTY LIMITED
(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
(ACN 101 120 839)
Third Plaintiff

AND:

SOVEREIGN CAPITAL LTD
Defendant

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

10 AUGUST 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter is in Conti J’s docket.  Conti J is due to retire at the end of next week.  There is currently an application for summary dismissal made on behalf of the defendant which has not yet been finalised.  That application was filed a considerable time ago on 29 September 2006.  The matter was listed for directions before me some weeks ago in order to determine whether the plaintiffs wish to proceed with the matter. 

2. On 1 August 2007 the Registry of the Court wrote to the plaintiffs informing them that the defendant’s motion for summary dismissal was to be listed for directions today.  When the matter was called this morning, there was no appearance for the plaintiffs and the solicitor for the defendant therefore asked the Court to dismiss the proceeding. 

3. The proceeding has been stood over generally from time to time in the past and the applicant has shown no interest in pursuing the proceeding.  In the circumstances it is appropriate to accede to the defendant’s request. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:       20 August 2007

The Plaintiff did not appear.
Solicitor for the Defendant:	Reimer Winter Williamson
Date of Hearing:	10 August 2007
Date of Judgment:	10 August 2007