Morey, Philip James v Transurban City Link Ltd

[1996] FCA 168

CATCHWORDS

INTERIM INJUNCTION - Serious question assumed - balance of convenience - no question of principle.

Philip James Morey v Transurban City Link Limited and City Link Management Limited
No. VG124 of 1996
Cooper J, Melbourne, 14 March 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
  No. VG124 of 1996
BETWEEN:

PHILIP JAMES MOREY

Applicant

AND:

TRANSURBAN CITY LINK LIMITED

First Respondent

AND:

CITY LINK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Second Respondent

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:           Cooper J

WHERE MADE:  Melbourne

DATE OF ORDER:  14 March 1996

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The respondents advise the Australian Stock Exchange for the information of intending purchasers or potential purchasers and any persons making inquiry from the contact number contained in the prospectus of these proceedings and the allegations that the projections in the prospectus and the availability of tax concessions are alleged to be misleading and deceptive and may not in fact ultimately prove to be true, these allegations being denied by the parties who issued the prospectus.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be adjourned to 10.15 am Monday 18 March 1996 for further directions.

1. Any substantive application intended to be made by the applicant on 18 March 1996 be filed and served with supporting material by 4.00 pm 15 March 1996.

1. The costs of today be each parties' costs in the proceedings.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
  No. VG124 of 1996
BETWEEN:

PHILIP JAMES MOREY

Applicant

AND:

TRANSURBAN CITY LINK LIMITED

First Respondent

AND:

CITY LINK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Second Respondent

CORAM:  Cooper J

PLACE:  Melbourne

DATE:  14 March 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This case has come on as a matter of some urgency and I would have preferred greater time to hear submissions and to give my reasons.  For the purpose of the application I am prepared to assume that there is a serious question to be tried.  I am satisfied that with an appropriate notice to the Stock Exchange the balance of convenience leans in favour of allowing the shares to be listed today.  In saying that, I take into account that there are a number of people who have subscribed for the shares in the expectation that they will be listed.

I do not know their personal arrangements as to how they have paid for or acquired those shares, and what possible damage they may suffer if the shares do not trade today as indicated in the prospectus.  They are not parties before the Court and I must take account of their interests.  The only other parties who conceivably may suffer
damage are those who go on to the market and seek to buy shares today or in subsequent days.  Those persons, provided that they are informed of these proceedings and the allegations here made, can make commercial decisions as to what value they place on the shares, and whether in fact they trade in them.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The respondents advise the Australian Stock Exchange for the information of intending purchasers or potential purchasers and any persons making inquiry from the contact number contained in the prospectus of these proceedings and the allegations that the projections in the prospectus and the availability of tax concessions are alleged to be misleading and deceptive and may not in fact ultimately prove to be true, these allegations being denied by the parties who issued the prospectus.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be adjourned to 10.15 am Monday 18 March 1996 for further directions.

2. Any substantive application intended to be made by the applicant on 18 March 1996 be filed and served with supporting material by 4.00 pm 15 March 1996.

3. The costs of today be each parties' costs in the proceedings.

   I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of his Honour Justice Cooper.

Date:14 March 1996

Associate

Counsel for the Applicant:  Dr J Scutt

Solicitors for the Applicant:  Maurice Blackburn & Co

Counsel for the Respondent:  Mr J E Middleton QC and Mr T J Walker

Solicitors for the Respondent:  Freehill Hollingdale & Page

Date of Hearing:  14 March 1996

Place of Hearing:  Melbourne

Date of Judgment:  14 March 1996