Rangott v Pilor Pty Limited

[2006] FCA 800

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rangott v Pilor Pty Limited [2006] FCA 800

WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT v PILOR PTY LIMITED, JANELLE ROCHE, PIA SERVICES PTY LTD, FAIRCHROME PTY LTD, MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LTD, MARK AND NOORAINI BLUMER, IPAQ PTY LTD, CRDT PTY LTD AND AAR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

QUD 137 of 2005

DOWSETT J
16 MARCH 2006
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 137 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT
APPLICANT

AND:

PILOR PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

JANELLE ROCHE
SECOND RESPONDENT

PIA SERVICES PTY LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT

FAIRCHROME PTY LTD
FIFTH RESPONDENT

MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
SIXTH RESPONDENT

MARK & NOORAINI BLUMER
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

IPAQ PTY LTD
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

CRDT PTY LTD
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

AAR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
TWELFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

16 MARCH 2006

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The conduct of this litigation on behalf of the applicant has been completely unsatisfactory.  The problem has been an incremental one, and I have, from time to time, perhaps ill-advisedly, allowed indulgences to the applicant, and, to some extent, those indulgences have contributed to the present position.  I do not understand why my orders made on 22 October 2005 and 10 January 2006 have not been complied with.  It seems that the only explanation is either a total breakdown in communications between the client and his solicitors and/or total incompetence on the part of either the client or the solicitors or both.  I suspect, too, that the whole matter has been complicated by the relationship between the petitioning creditor and the applicant.  It would be impossible to ascertain the truth of the matter without a detailed hearing which, quite frankly, it does not deserve.  The applicant is, in any event, not statute barred.  Even if the proceedings were struck out, he would be able to commence new proceedings. 

2. In those circumstances, I cannot justify a detailed inquiry as to the ins and outs of what has happened in this matter and who is responsible for what.  I say that, keeping in mind the fact that to the extent that the respondents have been put to expense and otherwise inconvenienced by these matters, it will be possible to compensate them in costs.  In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to extend time in which to deliver an amended application and an amended statement of claim until 4.00 pm on Friday, 17 March 2006.  The applicant is to be at liberty to deliver an amended statement of claim and application only after he has made a substantial payment with respect to the costs of the proceedings.  “Substantial costs” means the amounts of the orders for costs previously made which costs are payable forthwith.  A mechanism should be put in place to facilitate the preparation of the bill in a taxable form and verifying it in a preliminary way, upon which there should be a substantial payment of such amounts as are not in dispute.

3. Any amounts that are in dispute should be paid into court to abide the outcome of the taxation proceedings.  As to any other outstanding costs, I will dispose of them this afternoon.  As presently inclined, I will order that they be paid forthwith.  However it will unduly complicate the matter if they are included in the order with respect to the future delivery of pleadings. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            4 July 2006

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr G T Bigmore QC
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Dibbs Abbott Stillman
Counsel for the First, Second & Third Respondents:	Mr P Flanagan SC
Solicitor for the First, Second & Third Respondents:	Tucker & Cowen
Solicitor for the Fifth, Eighth & Eleventh Respondents:	James Conomos Lawyers
Date of Hearing:	16 March 2006
Date of Judgment:	16 March 2006