Murray, L.o.a. v Macquarie Bank Ltd

[1991] FCA 451

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QG 159 of 1990

D D W C T	REGISTRY	1	l
1

BETWEEN: b- Y

Applicant

AND: T !

First Respondent

AND1 RAYMOND WILLIAM CARLE

Second Respondent

AND BETWEEN*

Cross-Applicant

AND:  &,

First Cross-Respondent

Mm: d ~ - E

Second Cross-Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

PINCUS J.
6 AUGUST

k&!Ziir	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rulea.

BRISBANE

1.   Orders 1) 2, 3 and 4 made on 7 May 1991 be set as ide .

2.    Costs of and incidental to the notice of motion be costs in the proceedings.

THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1 No. pG 159 of 1990

STRICT REGISTRY ) )

BETWEEN: bYNNE ORRELLE ANGEIA MURRAY

Applicant

AND: D E MACOUARIE BANK LIMITED

First Respondent

AND! - M

Second Respondent

AND BETWEEN! THE MACOUARIE BANK LIMITED

Cross-Applicant

AND: JIYNNE ORRELLE ANGELA MURRAY

First Cross-Respondent

AND: JOHN ALEXANDER BAKER

Second Cross-Respondent

-1 PINCUS J.

PL66gt BRISBANE

mt 6 AUGUST 1991

ONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 24 July 1991, I delivered reasons stating my intention to set aeide the whole of the orders made on a nlotion for summary judgment; I neither repeat nor summarize thoee reaeone. After I delivered the reasons, counsel for the applicant, Mr. Perry, submitted that the proper course was 6hply to adjourn hie motion, for consideration by Spender J.

I wae referred to an unreported decision of Rogers C.J. C0mm.D. in Yore Contractore Ptv. Ltd. v. Bolcon Ptv. Ltd.

(Supreme Court of New South Wales, 17 July 1989). It does not

l

appear to me that the decision just mentioned is authority for the proposition that I had no power to do what the applicant's motion sought. Had counsel for the applicant asked in the first place that the applicant's motion be adjourned for coneideration by Spender J., I might have been inclined to accede to that. But it seems to me plain that it would not be

(I proper exercise of discretion to do so now, when the whole

matter has been argued.

Counsel for the respondent bank, Mr. Morris, 8ubmitted that if the orders made on the motion for sununary judgment on 7 May 1991 were set aside, then the Court should, in substitution for them, either simply give judgment for $235,000 or make orders designed to produce a speedy trial.

I propose to make the orders foreshadowed in my k&&Bon€i of 24 July 1991. Further, I will accede to Mr. Morrist alternative submission and make orders intended to prodlice an early trial. I have determined to do this rather

circumstance that the applicant has made a claim for damages

than simply give the respondent bank judgment, because of the

against the respondent bank which I propose to treat as an arguable one, despite the submissions that the applicant's clhim has obvious difficulties. Referring then, again, to the ldht paragraph of my reasons of 24 July last, I will make the okdbrs there foreshadowed and, in addition, after hearing the pclrtiee, make orders deeigned to produce an early trial. The costa will be costs in the proceedings.

I c e r t i f y that the two preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons f o r judgment herein o f h i e

Honour Mr. Jus t i ce Pincus.

Associate

Date 6 R w 3 u ~ t \??I