JUDGMENT No. ........ ........ . . 4351 So . , , , , , . .
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) OUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD NO. G57 of 1988 GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: THOMPSON PARK
Applicant
AND: ENERCON PTY LTD
First Respondent
AND: GREGORY WHEAT
Second Respondent
MINUTES OF ORDER
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: SPENDER J. DATE OF ORDER: 20 JULY 1990 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(1) The application by the respondents for an oral
examination of the applicant is declined.(2) The respondents are given leave to appeal against
this decision.
REGISTRY
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order
36 of the Federai Court Rules.
RECEIVED
FEDERAL COURT OF
AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
) Nb QG 57 of 1988 GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: THOMPSON PARK
Applicant
AND: ENERCON PTY LTD
First Respondent
AND: GREGORY WHEAT
Second Respondent
SPENDER J.
BRISBANE
2 0 JULY 1990.
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is a notice of motion filed on 18 July 1990 by Enercon Pty Ltd and Gregory Wheat ('the respondentsr), who are the respondents to an appeal brought by the applicant, M r Thompson Park ( 'the applicant') from a judgment of Einfeld J. given on 1 June 1990. The notice of motion seeks, inter alia, an order that Mr Park "attend before the Registrar of the Federal Court at such time and place as he may appoint to be
orally examined as to whether any and what debts are owing to the applicant and whether the applicant has any and what other property or means of satisfying the judgment".
M r Justice Einfeld on 1 June 1990 ordered that the
application by Mr Park, being application G57 of 1988, be
dismissed, and, as to costs, ordered in the following terms:
'l The Applicant is to pay the costs ot the Respondent as set out hereunder.
(a)
Three quzirters of the costs i~icrlrred in defending the matter arising out of the thrce forged documents and dealing with the forgeries be paid on a solicitorlclient basis and;
(b)
In other respects the Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs on a partylparty basis.
Costs shall include reserved costs.
'I'he money paid into Court by the Applicant, pursuant to the
security for costs order be paid to the Respondent. "
I t i s a p p a r e n t from t h e f o r c e f u l terms o f t h e r e a s o n s
f o r judgment o f E i n f e l d J. t h a t h i s Honour h a s formed a n
a d v e r s e v i e w o f M r P a r k and h i s c o n d u c t . E i n f e l d J. f…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Park, T. v Enercon Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1990] FCA 435
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the court had the power to order an oral examination under Order 47 r. 33 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, given that the order for costs had not been taxed, and whether the respondents were entitled to enforce the untaxed order for costs.
Spender J. concluded that the court lacked the power to order an oral examination as the untaxed order for costs did not constitute a judgment or order for the payment of money, and the respondents were not entitled to enforce it. The court reasoned that until the costs were taxed, the applicant was not a debtor in the legal sense, and the order was incapable of enforcement by legal process. The court referred to the House of Lords' decision in Westham Union v St Matthew, which held that an order for the payment of costs without specifying the amount did not constitute a debt until the amount was certified. Spender J. held that the order for costs created only an inchoate liability, which could not be enforced until taxation. Consequently, the court declined to make the order sought by the respondents.
Spender J. granted leave to the respondents to appeal against this decision.
The court ordered that the application by the respondents for an oral examination of the applicant be declined and that the respondents be given leave to appeal against this decision.
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.