CITATION: Palmera Import Export Pty Ltd v Tobacco Dome Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1016
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 31 August 2007 JUDGMENT OF: Hammerschlag J EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 31 August 2007 DECISION: Unless plaintiff has by 26 September 2007 complied with orders, proceedings to be dismissed. CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for dismissal of plaintiff’s claim on grounds of protracted non-compliance with orders of Court for bringing matter to trial – Self-executing order made dismissing the proceedings if orders of Court not complied with by specified date CASES CITED: Bomanite Pty Ltd v Slatex Corp Australia Pty Ltd (1991) 32 FCR 379 PARTIES: Palmera Import Export Pty Ltd t/a King of Tobacco ACN 003 606 657
Tobacco Dome Pty Ltd ACN 093 963 421
Costa Sarris
Cignall Pty LtdFILE NUMBER(S): SC 50130/2005 COUNSEL: R.W. Tregenza (Plaintiff)
S. Tatarka (Defendants)SOLICITORS: Malouf Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Belleli King & Associates (Defendants)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST
HAMMERSCHLAG J
31 AUGUST 2007
50130/2005 PALMERA IMPORT EXPORT PTY LTD –V- TOBACCO DOME PTY LTD AND ORS
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: This is a matter in which there has, for a long time, been default by the plaintiff of orders of the Court for the bringing of this matter to trial.
2 The position is currently that Mr Tregenza of counsel, who appears for the plaintiff, informs me and I accept, that the plaintiff requires until 18 September 2007 to file and serve both its expert reports and to complete discovery on a verified basis, which has not yet taken place.
3 Having regard to the age of this matter and to the defaults of the plaintiff which are set out and dealt with in the affidavit of David Arthur Rewell of 17 August 2007, and to the facts that these proceedings have been on foot for a period now extending over two years and that the plaintiff was to have been in a position it now says it will be in by 18 September 2007 by 8 December 2006, this is an appropriate case for there to be made an order, such as was made in Bomanite Pty Ltd v Slatex Corp Australia Pty Ltd (1991) 32 FCR 379, that is, a self-executing order, dismissing these proceedings, in the event that the plaintiff fails to comply with those orders by 18 September 2007. In order to obviate any last minute glitch, Mr Tregenza moves for an extra few days which, in the circumstances, I will grant.
4 The orders of the Court will be:
1. Unless, by Wednesday 26 September 2007, the plaintiff has made verified discovery in accordance with the orders of the Court, that is, the order of Bergin J, made on 1 June 2007, and has filed and served an affidavit that it has so complied with that order, the plaintiff’s claim shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff shall not, in the proceedings, be entitled to rely on any expert testimony, unless expert reports comprehending that testimony have been served on the defendants by Wednesday 26 September 2007.
3. I stand the matter over to the Commercial List on Friday 28 September 2007.
4. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the motion.
5. I reserve the question as to whether the appropriate scale is the indemnity basis and whether the costs should be assessed and payable forthwith, to await the outcome of the plaintiff's compliance or otherwise with the order of 1 June 1007.
6. The parties have liberty to apply on 48 hours notice.
7.
I vacate the order in paragraph 7 of the order of 1 June 2007, noting that a direction for the filing of the defendants' evidence may be made when the matter is next before the Court.
25/09/2007 - Incorrect year - Paragraph(s) Heading
- AGLC
- Palmera Import Export Pty Ltd v Tobacco Dome Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1016
- Case
- [2007] NSWSC 1016
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's ongoing failure to comply with the orders constituted sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the proceedings. Additionally, the court examined the applicability of a self-executing order, which was made dismissing the proceedings if the orders of the Court were not complied with by a specified date.
The court found that the plaintiff's non-compliance with the orders was indeed protracted and deliberate. The court held that the self-executing order was valid and enforceable, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the orders of the Court and the consequences of failing to do so. The dismissal of the proceedings was considered appropriate in the circumstances.
The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed, and the proceedings were terminated. Additionally, the court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application, which were to be taxed if not agreed upon.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.