Poignand, R.J. v NZI Securities Australia Ltd

[1994] FCA 773

. . :

JUDGMENT No. ... kzd. .~ 2.2 .*?.

FOR DISTRIBUTIO~

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. NG 397 of 1992
GENERAL DIVISION	) No. NG 620 of 1992

BETWEEN :  ROGER JAMES POIGNAND
Applicant

AND:	NZ1 SECURITIES AUSTRALIA LIMITED h ORS
Respondents

BETWEEN:	NZ1 CAPITAL CORPORATION LIMITED
Applicant

AND:  ROGER JAMJ3S POIGNAND h ORS
Respondents

CORM:	SACKWLLE J.
PLACE :	SYDNEY  RECEIVED
DATE:	25 OCTOBER 1994

REGISTRY

4. ~ l l parties to proceedings NG 620 of 1992 who are group

1.    The motions of the respondents in proceedings NG 397 of 1992 and of the applicant in proceedings NG 620 of 1992 be dismissed.

2.    The hearing of proceedings NG 397 of 1992 should include issues relating to the quantification of damages claimed by the applicant.

3.    The applicant in proceedings NG 397 of 1992 file and serve an amended statement of claim, in conformity with the reasons herein, on or before 2 November 1994.

members i n proceedings NG 397 of 1992 ( inc lud ing t h e

appl icant i n proceedings NG 397 of 1992) t o f i l e and se rve any amended pleadings i n t h e guarantee proceedings i n consequence of t h e amended statement of claim i n proceedings NG 397 of 1992, on o r before 9 November 1994.

5. Stand t he mat ter over f o r f u r t he r d i r ec t i ons a t 9.30 a.m.

on 11 November 1994.

6 .	The p a r t i e s t o proceedings	NG	397 of	1992 have	l i b e r t y t o
apply on 48 hours no t i ce .

Set t lement and en t ry of orders is d e a l t wi th i n

Order 36 of t h e Federal Court Rules.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. NG 397 of 1992
GENERAL DIVISION	) No. NG 620 of 1992

BETWEEN :  ROGER JAMES WIGNAND
Applicant

AND :	NZ1 SECURITIES AUSTRALIA LIMITED & ORS
Respondents

BETWEEN :	NZ1 CAPITAL CORPORATION LIMITED
Applicant

AND :  ROGER JAKBS POIGNAND h ORS
Respondents

CO=:	SACKVILLE J.
PIACE :	SYDNEY
DATE:	25 OCTOBER 1994
lldwxsu

Two sets of proceedings are before the Court, namely NG 397 of

the respondents in proceedings NG 397 of 1992, namely, NZ1

1992 and NG 620 of 1992. A notice of motion has been filed by

Securities ("NZ1 Securities"), NZ1 Capital Corporation Ltd ("NZ1 Capital") and Mr M.E. Wayland, who was appointed as a receiver and manager of certain property of Ripoll Holdings Pty Ltd ("Ripoll"). NZ1 Capital is the applicant in proceedings NG 620 of 1992. The motion seeks orders, inter a l i a , that both proceedings be tried at the same time and that evidence in one be evidence in the other. In order to understand what lies

behind the motion, some background is necessary.

In matter NG 397 of 1992 the applicant, Mr Poignand, claims relief as a representative party, pursuant to the provisions of Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. I shall refer to this matter as the "representative proceedings". The group members to which these proceedings relate include Ripoll Holdings, which was the trustee of the DYV Unit Trust. It borrowed about $15 million under a facility (ultimately) provided by NZ1 Capital. Apart from Ripoll and Rosewick Holdings Pty Ltd, which succeeded Ripoll as trustee, the group members in the proceedings are the guarantors of Ripoll's obligations under the facility and the unlt holders in the trust. Some guarantors and unit holders have, however, opted out of the proceedings. The relief sought in the representative proceedings is based, inter alia, on claims of misleading and deceptive conduct by the NZ1 companies in relation to the term of the facility. The remedies claimed include orders varying the finance facility and refusing to enforce the guarantees, as well as damages under the Trade

Practices Act 1974. In addition, the applicant seeks orders that

the appointment of the receiver to the assets of Ripoll was
invalid.

Proceedings No. NG 620 of 1992 were originally instituted by NZ1 Capital in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In those proceedings ("the guarantee proceedings"), NZ1 Capital sought to enforce the guarantees given in respect of the facility granted to Ripoll. Ten guarantors were named as defendants. Of these,

one (Arthur John Emmett) has not been served and has filed no defence. Another (John Dalton Courtney) has since died and his estate has filed no defence. Two of the defendants (J.D. Courtney and Roger James Poignand) were directors of Ripoll, while a third (Peter William Metcalfe) was the secretary of Ripol l.

A large number of cross claims were filed in the guarantee

proceedings.	The parties were as follows:
Cross Claimant(s)	Cross Defendant(s)
First defendant (R.J. Poignand)	NZ1 Capital; NZ1 Securities M.E. Wayland
Third defendant (P.W. Metcalfe)	NZ1 Capital
Fourth defendant (W.L. Hawke	NZ1 Capital; R.J. Poignand;
Holdings Pty Ltd)	J.D. Courtney; P.W. Metcalfe
Sixth and Seventh defendants	N'.L Capital; J.D Courtney;
(Victor Malcolm Pannikote and	P.W. Metcalfe
Victor Pannikote Holdings Pty Ltd)
Eighth defendant	NZ1 Capital
(Harold Victor Holden)

Ninth and tenth defendants	NZ1 Capital; R.J. Poignand;
(Margaret Isobel Fulton and	Anthony G. Hawkins
Fulton Enterprises Pty Ltd)

It is to be noted that the cross-claim of R.J. Poignand was framed as a representative proceeding under Part IVA of the

F e d e r a l 1976. It covered the same or

similar ground to that now addressed in the representative
proceedings.
In August 1992 the guarantee proceedings were transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. On 15

October 1992 Lockhart J. ordered that the guarantee proceedings

be stood over pending determination of the representative proceedings. The guarantee proceedings have not yet been heard.

It is important to note that, on the same date, Lockhart J. also ordered that

"the issues arising under paragraph[s] 26A and 42(c) of the amended statement of claim [in the representative proceedings] and all issues of damages or other relief"

be tried separately from, and subsequent to, all other issues arising under the amended statement of claim. These paragraphs allege that each of the guarantors had been induced to enter into their respective guarantees by renresentations relating to the term of the facility. Those represenz,cions were alleged to have been made by or on behalf of NZ1 Capital and NZ1 Securities and communicated to each of the guarantors and relied on by each of

each guarantor. them. Such a case necessarily raises factual issues peculiar to	The issues in the representative proceedings, as defined by the
orders of Lockhart J., were heard before Wilcox J., who gave judgment on 7 January 1994. In that judgment his Honour found that the appointment of M.E. Wayland as receiver of Ripoll by NZ1 Capital was invalid, at least for a short time until the validity was subsequently cured. Wilcox J. also rejected the claim against NZ1 Capital and NZ1 Securities based on alleged misleading and deceptive conduct. The case is reported as poianand v N Z 1 Securities Australia Ltd (1994) 120 ALR 237.
An appeal by leave on certain issues was determined by the Full
Court on 22 July 1994. The Court held that, assuming there had been a default by Ripoll under the facility, the receiver had been validly appointed from the outset. This appeal is reported as N Z 1 Securities Australia Ltd v Poianand (1994) 123 ALR 11.
A second appeal by leave was determined by the Full Court on 21 September 1994. This appeal concerned so much of the trial as involved an allegation that N Z 1 Securities and N Z 1 Capital had contravened 8.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct as to the term of the loan facility. The Full Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new
trial : Jer.kins v N Z 1 Securities AV itralia Ltd, 21 Sey :ember 1994,
unreported. In the judgment the Court made the following observations:

the conclusion that there must be a new trial. At	"What we have said leads, in our view, inevitably to
that trial all issues in the litigation should be disposed of, putting aside only issues of quantification of damages, if the Judge taking the trial is of the view that it is appropriate to defer the hearing of that question."

The Court ordered, inter alia, that

"[tlhere should be a new trial of all issues other than those dealt with in our judgment delivered 22 July 1994.... That new trial should be held concurrently with the trial of all remaining untried issues between all parties to the proceeding, but subject to such further directions as may be given by a Judge of the Court."

The Full Court did not explain in detail why this order had been made and, in particular, why it was thought that the issues raised by paragraphs 26A and 42(c) of the amended statement of claim should be dealt with in the representative proceedings.

NZI's Promsed Course

This course of events raises some difficult questions for the future conduct of prolonged and complex litigation that has as yet failed to resolve the issues between the many parties. Mr Jacobson QC, who appeared on behalf of the NZ1 companies and the receiver, urged that all matters in the representative and guarantee proceedings be heard together. The motion on which he moved also sought an order under s.33N(l) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, that the representative proceedings not continue as such under Part IVA of the Act. However, M r Jacobson conceded in argument that I was precluded by the terms of the orders of the Full Court from making an order pursuant to s.33N(l). Those orders require a new trial to be held,

concurrently with all remaining untried issues between the	parties to the proceedings, subject only to the qualifications
specified in the judgment. The qualifications do not appear to contemplate the course proposed by M r Jacobson under s.33N(l). The other parties represented at the directions hearing either
expressly supported Mr Jacobson's interpretation of the Full Court's orders or did not dissent from that interpretation.
The course proposed by Mr Jacobson was opposed by all other parties represented at the hearing of the motion. The
difficulties of that course are well illustrated by the position of Hawke Holdings Pty Ltd ("Hawke"), one of the guarantors and (now) a respondent to the guarantee proceedings. Hawke has opted out of the representative proceedings, as it is entitled to do under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act. In its defence in the guarantee proceedings, Hawke does not plead that it was induced to execute the guarantee by misrepresentations. Rather, it pleads that the guarantee was never executed under its authority. The defence alleges that the resolutions purporting to authorise the execution of the guarantee by Hawke were passed
at a meeting which was not a true directors ' meeting, but was one
orchestrated by Mr Poignand, W Courtney and Mr Metcalfe.
According to affidavit evidence which was not seriously challenged, the effect of the orders sought by Mr Jacobson would be to require the legal representatives of Hawke to attend proceedings that could last from six to twelve weeks at a cost to Hawke of perhaps $25,000 per week. Yet the issues relating to Hawke, if tried separately, might be expected to take no more
proceedings, it may not be necessary for the separate proceedings than a week. Depending on the result of the representative involving Hawke to be resolved by a hearing.
A similar problem affects the ninth and tenth respondents to the guarantee proceedings, who might be described as the Fulton interests. They, too, have opted out of the representative proceedings. Unlike the other guarantors, whose guarantees, if valid, would extend to the whole of the amounts due by Ripoll,
the Fulton interests apparently executed guarantees limited to
$250,000. The Fulton interests have cross claimed against NZ1
Capital, R.J. Poignand and A.G. Hawkins, a solicitor. The litigation between the Fulton interests and the cross-respondents to the cross-claims raises a number of issues that are quite distinct from those raised in the representative proceedings. More to the point, if the course urged by Mr Jacobson were adopted, those representing the Fulton interests and Mr Hawkins would be required to participate in a case likely to last over six weeks in order to litigate claims and cross-claims limited to $250,000. The costs of litigating would be likely to approach or exceed the amount in dispute.
When these difficulties were aired, M r Jacobson was askedwhether he persisted with the application that both sets of proceedings be heard together, at least in relat Jn to -iawke and the Fulton interests. He replied that the reason for the application was essentially that all matters should be resolved finally in the one proceedings. It followed in his submission that the whole
of the guarantee proceedings should be heard together. Mr Jacobson acknowledged frankly that there would be unfortunate
consequences for Hawke, the Fulton interests and, perhaps, Mr Hawkins. But he submitted that this was, in effect, the price that had to be paid to achieve a final resolution of all issues in the complex litigation.
Hr Hamilton's Prowsal Mr Hamilton QC, who appeared for the applicant in the
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e proceedings proposed a d i f f e r e n t cour se . He
s t a r t e d w i t h the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the d i r e c t i o n s o f the Fu l l
Court had t o be fo l l owed . Those d i r e c t i o n s meant t h a t the
a l l e g a t i o n s r a i s e d b y paragraphs 26A and 4 2 ( c ) o f the amended
s t a t emen t o f c l a i m had t o be d e a l t w i t h , e v e n though s epara t e
f a c t u a l i s s u e s were n e c e s s a r i l y r a i s e d i n r e l a t i o n t o each o f the
guaran tors . I n v i e w o f t h i s he submi t t ed t h a t the s e n s i b l e
c o u r s e was t o i ncorpora t e i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e proceedings a l l
i s s u e s pleaded i n the guarantee proceedings t h a t were c l o s e l y
r e l a t e d t o t h o s e a l r e a d y r a i s e d i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
proceedings . He i d e n t i f i e d t h e s e a s f o l l o w s :

" 1 . A l l i s s u e s a s t o whether N Z I engaged i n

m i s l e a d i n g o r d e c e p t i v e conduct a s a l l e g e d i n the

amended s t a t emen t o f c l a i m so a s t o con t ravene

s . 52 o f the Trade P r a c t i c e s A c t .

2 . A l l i s s u e s a s t o whether R i p o l l o r a n y o f the

guarantors	s u f f e r e d damage	o r i s l i ke ly t o s u f f e r
dar .ge by reason o f	h a t conduct so a	t o be

e n t i t l e d t o damages under S . 82 or rel ie f under

S . 87 o f the Act ( s a v e o n l y for the i s s u e o f the

q u a n t i f i c a t i o n o f damages).

3 . A l l i s s u e s a s t o whe ther N Z I i s es topped by i t s

a c t s or omi s s ions o r by c o n v e n t i o n from t r e a t i n g

the f i nance f a c i l i t y a s e x p i r e d i n A p r i l 1991.

4 . A l l i s s u e s a s to:

( a ) whether or n o t N Z I were o b l i g e d t o conduct

a r e v i e w o f the f i n a n c e f a c i l i t y a t the end

o f the	t h i r d y e a r	and	whether o r n o t	they
were	o b l i g e d	t o conduct	such	r e v i e w bona
f i d e ;

(b)	whe ther or n o t a n y such review was conducted
and whether i t was conducted bona f i d e ;
( C )	whether o r n o t R i p o l l passed o r f a ~ l e d t o
pass t h a t r e v i e w i f conducted;
( d )	whether o r n o t R i p a l l i s e n t i t l e d t o a n y
damages a r i s i n g o u t o f ( a ) , (b) and ( c )
above ( s a v e o n l y f o r the l s s u e o f

quantification of damages).

5.   All the defences arising from para. l5 of NZI's defence insofar as these are still maintained. "

The reference to paragraph 15 of NZI's defence is to an allegation that NZ1 Capital was in any event entitled to require payment of the facility and to appoint a receiver, by virtue of defaults on the part of Ripoll under the tacility. It should also be said that the matters referred to in paragraph 4 of Mr Hamilton's document would appear to require some further amendment to the statement of claim, although they are related to issues already pleaded.

Mr Hamilton helpfully attached a summary of defences and cross

claims in the guarantee proceedings and used that summary to identify the issues that would be embraced by his proposal. Procedurally, Mr Hamilton proposed that the issues he had identified could be incorporated into an amended statement of claim filed in the representative proceedings. One set of legal

applicant in those proceedings, although of course all group

representatives would act on behalf of the representative

members would be bound.

Mr Hamilton's proposal had been circulatedto the representatives

of other parties prior to the directions hearing. As I understand it, the position of each of the individual guarantors who were parties to the guarantee proceedings was as follows in relation to Mr Hamilton's proposal:

First Respondent ~ o t opposed to the proposal.

(R.J. Poignand)

Second Respondent	The legal representatives were
(Estate of J.D. Courtney)	excused and did not participate.

AS noted, no defence has been

filed in the guarantee

proceedings.

Third Respondent	A letter from the legal
(P.W. Metcalfe)	representatives supported the proposal but requested that the third respondent not be bound by findings regarding misleading conduct through NZI's agents, J.D. Courtney and R.J.Poignand.
Fourth Respondent	Did not oppose the proposal, on

(W. L. Hawke Holdings the basis that Hawke had opted out

Pty Ltd)	of the representative proceedings and the proposed amendments to the statement of claim did not affect it.
Fifth Respondent	Not served.
(Arthur John Emmett)	No defence filed.
Sixth and Seventh	Supported the proposal.
Respondents (V.M. Pannikote, Victor Pannikote Holdings Pty Ltd)

Eighth Respondent	Did not appear at the directions
(H.V. Holden)	hearing.

Ninth and Tenth Respondents	Did not oppose the proposal, on the
(M.I. Fulton,	basis that the Fulton interests
Margaret Fulton	had opted out of the
Enterprises Pty Ltd)	representative proceedings and the proposed amendments to the statement of claim would not affect them.

I should add that M r Hawkins, the cross respondent to the cross claim by the Fulton interests, was represented at the directions hearing by Mr Churches. Mr Churches supported the approach

proposed by Mr Hamilton

I also note that the nature or purpose of the qualification in the letter from the third respondent's solicitors, to which I have referred, is not altogether easy to follow. The defence filed by the third respondent in the guarantee proceedings alleges that the NZ1 companies engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by representations to Mr Courtney and M r Poignand, which were in turn communicated to the third respondent. There are also allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct by NZ1 Capital through representations made by MS Middleton, then an officer of the company, to Mr Poignand as an agent of the third respondent. It is a little difficult to understand what course the representatives have in mind.

The course proposed by Mr Hamilton ha the considerable advantage that it is intended to bring together, in the one proceedings, all factual and legal issues directly arising out of or connected with the issues already included in the representative

proceedings. Furthermore, if the proposed course is implemented,	the issues will be canvassed with only one set of legal
representatives acting on behalf of the grouped parties. In this connection, M r Hamilton indicated that the question of possible conflict of interest had been addressed and none had been apparent to him. No other party suggested that there was such a conflict. Finally, the proposed course avoids the expense and waste if the parties who have opted out of the representative proceedings are embroiled in a potentially long case in which
they and their representatives would play a relatively minor role.
The Arauments Aaainsc
Mr Jacobson argued against Mr Hamilton's proposal, on the ground that there was a risk that the same or similar issues might be litigated in two separate proceedings. This created a risk of the "scandal", that different findings might be made by different judges on similar issues. He gave the illustration that a
finding might be made in the representative proceedings that a particular representation made by an officer of NZ1 Capital was communicated to Mr Poignand or Mr Courtney, in circumstances where NZ1 Capital should have been aware that the representation would be conveyed by those persons to one or more of the guarantors. Yet in the guarantee proceedings it might be decided, on the evidence then presented, that a separate representation by an officer of NZ1 Capital was made to Mr Poignand or Mr Courtney, but not in circumstances where NZ1 Capital should have been aware that the representation would be
conveyed to any of the guarantors.
From a perusal of the pleadings in the guarantee proceedings, it would seem that the only case in which the difficulty foreshadowed by Mr: Jacobson might occur is in relation to the defences and cross-claims filed on behalf of the Pannikote interests. Their defences allege representations, unrelated to the term of the facility, made by M r Polgnand and Mr Courtney as agents for the NZ1 companies. Nonetheless, it must be

acknowledged that there is a risk of the kind to which Mr Jacobson referred, although it may be necessary in a particular case to take account of s.83 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. (This allows certain findings of fact to be prima fac ie evidence of that fact in other proceedings involving the person found to have contravened the provisions of the Act). And of course amendments to pleading might give rise to new issues on the guarantee proceedings.

I appreciate the force of what Mr Jacobson puts. However, in my view, the risk identified by him is inherent in the conduct of the representative proceedings, once it is accepted (as follows from the directions of the Full Court) that the hearing must consider the allegations of misrepresentation and reliance contained in paragraphs 26A and 42(c) of the amended statement of claim. deed ':he approach adopted by Mr Hamilton may be thought to minimise the risk, since factual and legal issues directly related to the representations pleaded in the amended statement of claim in the representative proceedings will be

incorporated in those proceedings. In the absence of such a

procedure, difficult questions would arise as to how far findings in the representative proceedings preclude agitation of related but not identical issues in the guarantee proceedings. It is true that the solutions proposed by M r Jacobson would overcome the risk that inconsistent or apparently inconsistent findings might be made in separate hearings. But it would do so at immense cost to some if not all the parties, particularly those who have chosen to opt out of the representative proceedings.

That price, in my judgment, is too high to pay.

The Preferred AD~roach
It seems to me that, subject to one matter, the approach proposed
by Mr Hamilton, provided it can be accommodated procedurally,
should be adopted. The qualification is that I think that
questions relating to quantification of damages should be
included in the hearing of the representative proceedings. It
was common ground among the parties that properties subject to
the charges in favour of the NZ1 companies had been sold.
Accordingly, the remedies available to the trustee (assuming the
case on its behalf is made out) are, in effect, limited to
damages. In my opinion, having regard to the unfortunate history
of the litigation it is desirable to resolve all questions of
relief in the representative proceedings at the same time as
issues of liability. The additional hear:.ig time and
preparation, although not insignificant, will not be great. If
the quantification of damages is dealt with there will be no need

for a separate hearing on that issue and possible duplication of

effort and hearing time will be avoided. It may be, too, that

some issues in the guarantee proceedings cannot be resolved
finally until the representative proceedings are concluded.

It follows from what I have said that the representative proceedings should continue, but in the manner proposed by Mr Hamilton, provided that any procedural difficulties can be addressed. In my view, this will involve the following steps:

An amended statement of claim should be filed in the

representative proceedings incorporating the issues

foreshadowed by Mr Hamilton. This should be done
rapidly.

(ii)      The issues so incorporated, where they raise matters presently pleaded in the guarantee proceedings, should be excised from the pleadings in the guarantee proceedings. In other words, as far as possible, there ought to be no duplication between the issues raised in the representative proceedings and those raised in the guarantee proceedings. This will require the parties to the guarantee proceedings who are group members in the representative proceedings to amend their pleadings. Should this not be done by one or more of the parties a'fected, it may be necessary to determine what, if any, further orders of the Court are required.

(iii) Once the amendments to the statement of claim in the representative proceedings are made, it may be appropriate for guarantors who are group members in those proceedings to have a further opportunity to opt out by reason of the amendments. This opportunity could be afforded by means of an application by a group member pursuant to s.335(3) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, or by order of the Court on its own motion under s.33ZF(1) of the Act.

(iv)       A timetable for further pleadings and evidence (particularly on the question of damages) will be required.

Orders

The orders and directions I make are as follows:

1. I dismiss the motions of the respondents in proceedings NG

397 of 1992 and of the applicant in proceedings NG 620 of
1992.

1. I direct that the hearing of proceedings NG 397 of 1992

should include issues relating to the quantification of
damages claimed by the applicant.

1. I direct the applicant in proceedings NG 397 of 1992 to

   file and serve an amended - tatemect of claim in conformity

   with the reasons herein, on or before 2 November 1994.

2. I direct all parties to proceedings NG 620 of 1992 who are

group members in proceedings NG 397 of 1992 (including the applicant in proceedings NG 397 of 1992) to file and serve

any amended pleadings in the guarantee proceedings in consequence of the amended statement of claim in proceedings NG 397 of 1992, on or before 9 November 1994.

5.     I stand the matter over for further directions at 9.30 a.m.

on 11 November 1994.

6.    I grant liberty to apply on 48 hours notice.

I expect that at the directions hearing on 11 November 1994 a timetable for further evidence will be settled. Since the further conduct of the representative proceedings will not involve W.L. Hawke Holdings Pty Ltd and the Fulton interests, they are excused from attendance at further directions hearings until the resolution of the representative proceedings or further notice. The question of any further opportunity to opt out from the representative proceedings wlll also be dealt with on 11 November 1994.

I certify that thls and the preceding 17 pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice

Sackville. I

ssociate:  - 6-4

Dated: 25 October, 1994

Heard:	21 October 1994
Place:	Sydney

Decision:	25 October 1994
Appearances:	In proceedings No. NG 397 of 1992:
Mr Hamilton QC instructed by Blessington Judd appeared for the applicant.
Mr Jacobson QC instructed by Holmes and Bevan appeared for the respondents.
In proceedings No. NG 620 of 1992:
M r Jacobson QC instructed by Holmes & Bevan appeared for the applicant.
Mr Lever with Miss Rusak instructed by Abbott Tout Russell Kennedy appeared for the fourth respondent.
Mr C Lee of Christopher Lee & Associates appeared for the sixth and seventh respondents.
Mr T. Alexis instructed by Rockliffs, Solicitors, appeared for the ninth and tenth respondents.
Mr Churches instructed by Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher appeared for the cross- respondent to the sixth cross-claim.