Park, T. v Enercon Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read
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…
CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1990] FCA 435
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Thompson Park, the applicant, brought an appeal against a judgment by Einfeld J., which was given on 1 June 1990. Enercon Pty Ltd and Gregory Wheat, the respondents, filed a notice of motion on 18 July 1990, seeking an oral examination of the applicant to determine if any debts were owing to him and if he had any means of satisfying the judgment. Specifically, they wanted the applicant to be examined to ascertain the amount of the costs he owed, as the order for costs had not yet been taxed.

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.