Poche Engineering Australia Pty Ltd v Hitachi Construction Machinery (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor (No.2)
[2010] FMCA 665
•24 August 2010
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| POCHE ENGINEERING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & ANOR (No.2) | [2010] FMCA 665 |
| PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for adjournment made after applicant concludes submissions refused. |
| Applicant: | POCHE ENGINEERING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
| First Respondent: | HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
| Second Respondent: | HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY CO LTD |
| File Number: | SYG 3077 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 24 August 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 24 August 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 24 August 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr J de Meyrick |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Patrick Lim & Associates |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr J Hennessy |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | DibbsBarker |
ORDERS
Application for adjournment refused.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3077 of 2009
| POCHE ENGINEERING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
Applicant
And
| HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
First Respondent
| HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY CO LTD |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The respondent to the application seeks an adjournment after hearing the submissions being made by the applicant. He states that he is unable to deal with them at this stage. The application itself is for summary judgment in respect of the application in the statement of claim. The facts and matters upon which the respondents rely were more than broadcast in correspondence between the solicitors for the parties in about January of this year.
I refer particularly to a letter of 22 January 2010 addressed to the substantive applicants’ solicitors and marked as exhibit O to the affidavit of Scott Robert James Sloane sworn on 23 April 2010. The existence of this application has been known since 23 April. There really is no excuse for the respondents to the application not to be able to come to the Court prepared to respond to the detailed submissions being made by the applicants, Hitachi.
I do not propose to grant the adjournment.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Date: 1 September 2010
0
0
0