Morgan, R.C. v Henderson, G.M Summary

JUDGMENT No.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

1	No. VG 95 of 1994

)

GENERAL DIVISION

)

B E T W E E I ? :

ROBERT C-S MORGAN & ANOR

Applicants

- and -

GEOFFREY M HENDERSON & ORS Respondents

JUDGE :

Heerey J

g: 19 May 1994

PLACE :

Melbourne

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I think I have heard enough to be satisfied that generally speaking appropriate that there should be an Order under 0.29 r.5 that these two proceedings be heard together. I wish to make it clear I am not ruling out the possibility at a future time of a trial of some separate issue, but that would need a closer examination.

It is plain there is the potential for a large amount of

The claim of the Morgans on its face does raise a substantial number of issues which are also raised in the main action. I refer particularly to the representations alleged to have been made and also the allegation which I could compendiously describe as conflict of duty, that is the alleged failure of the accountants and solicitors to disclose "success fees" and the like.

evidence in relation to those issues. Just to take one example, the question of the falsity of the representations would raise questions as to the viability of this building as it could have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the representations. There was talk of the "scaling down" of the Morgans' claim, but that has not happened up until now and whether or not it is a good idea for them, in their own interests, to scale down their claim would need to be the subject of further careful consideration by them.

As I said in the course of argument, I am very sympathetic to the dilemma that the Morgans find themselves in with the costs they have incurred to date in their proceeding. But if their proceeding were to be run in isolation very much more expense would be incurred. I am not at all persuaded that they would not be better off sharing with a large number of other applicants the cost of the main claim.

There is the further consideration that, as Mr Clarke told me,

as cross-respondents to some cross-claims.

apparently the Morgans are already enmeshed in the main claim

There is also the factor that it would be highly undesirable where issues of credit arise over the making of representations, and perhaps other matters such as non- disclosure of the "success fees", if there were separate trials and the risk of conflicting findings being made by different judges. So all told I am satisfied that it is an

appropr ia te case f o r making an order under 0.

29 r.5.

A s I

mentioned

t h e fu tu re conduct of

d i rec t ions hearings

i n

t h i s matter w i l l be heard by me.

I t w i l l be a matter f o r t h e

p a r t i e s

t o l i a i s e with

a s soc i a t e s o t h a t it

can

f i t t e d

i n a t a convenient time, both f o r coilnsel and f o r myself.

I w i l l vacate t h e hearing da te of

1 July.

I	reserve t h e cos ts .

I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour Mr Justice Heerey.

Dated: - 19 May 1994

UL Assoclate

Counsel for the applicants:	R Kendall
Solicitor for the applicants:	David Johnson
Counsel for the first, second,	D Clarke
sixth to twelfth respondents:
Solicitor for the first, second,	Anderson Barker Gosling
sixth to twelfth respondents:
Counsel for the third and fourth	J Armstrong
respondents:
Solicitor for the third and	Sly & Weigall
fourth respondents:
Counsel for the fifth respondent:
Solicitor for the fifth	Thomsons .
respondent:
Date of hearing:	19 May 1994

JUDGES' CHAMBERS
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
450 LITTLE B O U m E STREET

MELBOURNE. 3000

9 June 1994

Mary Smart
Federal Court of Australia
Principal Registry
Law Courts Building
Queens Square

SYDNEY NSW 2000
Dear MS Smart,
p C Woraan h Anor and Geoffrev M Henderaon h Ors
No. VG 95 of 1994
I enclose a copy of the judgment delivered by his Honour M r
Justice Heerey in the above matter on 19 May 1994
A diskette record of the judgment is also enclosed.
This judgment is not for general distribution.
Associate to Heerey J

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Morgan, R.C. v Henderson, G.M. involved Robert C. Morgan and another applicant suing Geoffrey M. Henderson and others. The applicants were seeking damages related to alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose certain fees. The court was required to decide on whether the applicants' proceedings should be consolidated with the main action, which would involve shared costs and potentially avoid conflicting findings.

The legal issues before the court were centered around the efficiency and fairness of consolidating the applicants' proceedings with the main action. The court considered the potential for extensive evidence and overlapping issues, the applicants' financial burden, and the desirability of avoiding separate trials that could lead to inconsistent judgments. The court also examined the applicants' claim that they were already cross-respondents in the main action and the implications of this on the consolidation decision.

Justice Heerey concluded that consolidation was appropriate, noting the potential for significant shared evidence and the risk of inconsistent findings if separate trials were held. The court acknowledged the applicants' financial concerns but determined that the benefits of consolidation, including cost-sharing and avoiding conflicting findings, outweighed these concerns. The judge also reserved the right to address the conduct of future directions hearings separately.

The final orders included vacating the initial hearing date and reserving costs, with further directions to be coordinated between the parties and the court. The judgment was not intended for general distribution, and a diskette record was also enclosed for the court's records.

Morgan, R.C. v Henderson, G.M

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established