Mortgage Acceptance Nominees Limited v Camelot Holdings Pty Limited

[1993] FCA 1068

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )	No. NG 690 of 1991

1

GENERAL DIVISION i

BETWEEN :  PORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE NOMINEES
LIMITED

Applicant

AND:  CAMELOT HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED

First Respondent -

WLEN JOHN ARMITAGE

Second Respondent -

PHILLIP DOUGLAS BURTON
Third Respondent

JOHN KENNETH D ~ Y

Fourth Respondent -

RICHARD ESCOTT

Fifth Respondent

DAVID EVANS

Sixth Respondent

RENDALL LEONARD FALLA

Seventh Respondent
MICHAEL EDWARD HOWARTH

CLAUDIO LUIGI BETTOSINI

Eiahth Respondents

KEVIN WARWICK J ~ E T T Ninth Respondent

IAN LAIRD

PETA LAIRD

Tenth Respondent

COLIN DAN LETHBRIDGE

Eleventh Respondent

MARIEN JOHAN MAAT

JOAN MARY MAAT

Twentieth Respondent

Twelfth Respondents

JOHN JOSEPH O'BRIEN

Thirteenth Respondent
WILLIAM JOHN PHILLIPS
Fourteenth Respondent

JOHN STUBBE

Fifteenth Respondent
CAMELOT HOMES PTY LIMITED

Sixteenth Respondent

TALLAMOUND PTY LIMITED

Seventeenth Respondent
MALMONT CORPORATION PTY

LIMITED

Eighteenth Respondent

JENNIFER MAREE FALLA

Nineteenth Respondent

SARBRO PTY LIMITED

20 SEPTEMBER 1993

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J

There are before the Court two notices of motion. The first
is the motion of certain of the respondents seeking further

particulars from the applicant. That motion has already been adjourned until the commencement of the hearing, or further order, with liberty to apply on three days notice.

The matter where there has been debate concerns the notice of motion issued by the applicant and filed on 1 September 1993 seeking to interrogate certain of the respondents. The 7th, 19th and 20th respondents do not object to answering the interrogatories mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of that notice of motion and have agreed to answer them by Friday, 24 September 1993.

The fifth paragraph in that notice of motion seeks an order against the 7th, 14th, 19th and 20th respondents for payment of the applicant's costs of the motion on an indemnity basis. Counsel for the applicant has indicated to me that the only order that is sought now on that question is the ordinary costs on a party and party basis. In that event, the 7th, 14th, 19th and 20th respondents have said by their counsel that they have no objection. They do not wish to consent to the order, but do not say anything in opposition to it. There is no opposition to the applicant's order in paragraph 6 of the motion seeking to file a further amended statement of claim.

The 14th respondent is separately represented, and, by his counsel, opposes the orders sought in the notice of motion of 1 September, namely that he answer certain interrogatories, although he does consent to answering one of them, namely interrogatory No 2(c) referred to in the notice to answer interrogatories which appears at page 134 of the affidavit of Mr Richard Bruce Monteith of 31 August 1993.

The objection is taken to interrogatories 1 and 2 (a) and (b) primarily because, it is said, they will be of little assistance to the Court and really state matters that are fundamental to certain of the issues in the case. In my view, it is appropriate that those interrogatories be allowed to be administered, although with what degree of success remains to be seen. The basic objection by counsel for the 14th respondent concerns the balance of the interrogatories which, in the main, seek an

documents which are critical documents in the case.	admission from the 14th respondent that he signed certain
I have heard the argument in relation to why those interrogatories should not be allowed. In my opinion, although some tactical advantage would doubtless inure for the benefit of the 14th respondent if the interrogatories are not permitted, in my view they are appropriate interrogatories for the applicant to administer and I propose to allow them.

The Court orders that:

(1) The 10th and 13th respondents file and serve on or before 24 September 1993 responses to the applicant's notice to admit facts and documents dated 9 August 1993, reserving to the applicant the right to assert in due course that that response by those respondents is filed and served out of

time ;

(2) The 7th, 19th and 20th respondents file and serve verified answers to the interrogatories mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the notice of motion of 1 September 1993 on or before 24 September 1993;

(3) The 14th respondent file and serve verified answers to interrogatories on or before 27 September 1993, being interrogatories sought in paragraph 4 of the notice of motion of 1 September 1993;

(4) The 7th, 14th, 19th and 20th respondents pay the applicants

costs of its motion of 1 September 1993 on a party and
party basis.

Further, the Court gives leave to the applicants to file and serve a further amended statement of claim in the form set out as annexure A to the affidavit of Richard Bruce Monteith sworn on 31 August 1993 and thus containing only three paragraphs.

The Court directs that the respondents file and serve any further amended defences to the further amended statement of claim on or before 24 September 1993.

I certify that this and the

preceding four (4) pages are a true copy of the reasons for

judgment herein of

Dated: 20 September 1993

Counsel for the Applicant	.	D E Grieve QC
M Skinner

Solicitors for the Applicant :	Smits Leslie Barwick
Counsel for the 7th, loth,
13th, 19th, 20th Respondents :	C Harris
Solicitors for the 7th, loth,

13th, 19th, 20th Respondents :	Robinson Beale
Counsel for 14th Respondent	:	C M Simpson
Solicitors for 14th Respondent:	B M Salmon, Layton & CO
Date of Hearing	.	20 September 1993
Date of Judgment	.	20 September 1993