Re Wridgemont Display Homes Pty Ltd - [1992] FCA 604

JUDGMENT No. ..h04.. J 3&.,

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1 No. QG 3103 of 1992
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT 1
GENERAL DIVISION 1
IN THE MATTER OF THE
CORPORATIONS LAW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF WYSVISA PTY.
LTD. ("the Company") ACN 010 947
145
PETER TAK YUEN KAM
First Applicant

PETER JOSEPH 14cINALLY

Second Applicant

ROWAN ANDREW ASTILL
Third Applicant

SILVERVILLA PTY. LTD. ACN
010 928 336

Fourth Applicant

DAVID FISHER

First Respondent

TREVOR DAVID CHAPPELL

Second Respondent

HAVENCAY PTY. LIMITED ACN
003 928 336

Third Respondent

today's proceedings of all the other parties, such costs to be taxed on a solicitor and client basis.
MINUTES OF ORDERS

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Drummond J
DATE OF ORDER: 11 August, 1992
WHERE MADE: Brisbane
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The first applicant, Mr. Kam, pay the costs of
2. All parties have leave to tax their costs of today.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
1.        Each applicant file and serve a statement of factual and legal contentions by 10.00 a.m. on Monday, 17 August, 1992.
2.        The proceedings brought by any applicant who is in default of direction 1 herein shall stand dismissed as from 10.15 a.m. on Monday, 17 August, 1992.
3.        In the event that the proceedings brought by any applicant stand dismissed pursuant to direction 2 herein, that applicant shall pay the costs of the respondents of and incidental to that applicant's proceedings, such costs to be taxed on a solicitor and client basis.
4.        All respondents file and serve all material upon which they propose to rely in support of their applications for security for costs by 4.30 p.m. on

Thursday, 13 August next. C- F- -..

- ! i , t .,

,. . '-p -I-..,

5.

Any material upon which the first' appl,icanf, Mr. Kam, wishes to rely in response to applications for security for costs be filed and servedlby ,91a.m'., on Monday, 17 August.

. - , .

.1

\ ' .

I--

. , . . -
,- .

6. In relation to direction 5 herein, &$e firs$ # . - I

applicant, Mr. K m , has lealib. to 'file £acs'imil'&, I - . * .

affidavits. 2 * .F , , - *

"" ". " S3S' - '

.' -,. /,;'

7. The Court will hear any applications -by-&iy or all of the respondents for security for costs at 10.00

a.m. on Monday, 17 August, 1992.

8. The application by Messrs. McInally Astill for leave under Order 45 rule 7(2) of the Federal Court Rules is adjourned to 10.00 a.m. on Monday, 17 August,
1992.

9. The matter is adjourned generally for further directions to 10.00 a.m. on Monday, 17 August, 1992.

10. The applicants' solicitors, Messrs. McInally Astill
forthwith advise Mr. Klapper of Messrs. Clarke &
Kann of the terms of these directions.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1 NO. QG 3013 of 1992
QUEENSLANTI DISTRICT )
GENERAL DIVISION 1
IN THE MATTER OF THE
CORPORATIONS LAW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF WYSVISA PTY.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Wridgemont Display Homes 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: [1992] FCA 604
Decision Date: 11 Aug 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Wridgemont Display Homes Pty Ltd involves multiple applicants and respondents engaged in a dispute under the Corporations Law. The applicants, including Peter Tak Yuen Kam, Peter Joseph McInally, Rowan Andrew Astill, and Silvervilla Pty Ltd, are seeking certain orders against the respondents, David Fisher, Trevor David Chappell, and Havencay Pty Limited. The legal issues that arose before the court included whether the applicants could obtain interlocutory orders and if the first applicant, Mr. Kam, could change his legal representation in a manner that would disadvantage the other parties and the court. The court was also required to determine if it should make any orders regarding security for costs given Mr. Kam's residency outside the jurisdiction.

Justice Drummond found that while the prospects of settlement were initially high, Mr. Kam had acted in a manner that disadvantaged the other parties by not appearing as instructed and by changing his legal representation without proper notification. The court held that Mr. Kam was deliberately engaging in maneuvers that were not only unfair to the other parties but also to the court itself. Consequently, the court issued several directions to ensure the matter would proceed to trial if settlement did not occur. These directions included deadlines for filing statements of factual and legal contentions, provisions for dismissing proceedings in case of non-compliance, and requirements for the respondents to file material for applications for security for costs. Additionally, the court ordered Mr. Kam to pay the costs of the other parties for that day's proceedings.

In conclusion, the court's decision involved ensuring procedural fairness and expediting the trial process while addressing the strategic actions taken by Mr. Kam. The final orders included deadlines for compliance with procedural requirements, provisions for dismissal in case of non-compliance, and directives for the hearing of applications for security for costs.

Orders