RinRim Pty Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG

[2016] NSWSC 1390

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	RinRim Pty Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2016] NSWSC 1390
Hearing dates:	15, 16, 17, 18 and 22 August 2016
Date of orders:	29 September 2016
Decision date:	29 September 2016
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Commercial List
Before:	Bergin CJ in Eq
Decision:	Delivery of judgment deferred
Catchwords:	PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – where matter listed for judgment – where all parties seek deferral of delivery of judgment to enable pursuit of settlement discussions
Category:	Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties:	RinRim Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Deutsche Bank AG, Sydney Branch (1st Defendant) Credit Suisse (Australia) Limited (2nd Defendant) CIMB Capital Markets (Australia) Limited (3rd Defendant) Primary Health Care Limited (4th Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: SA Lawrance (Plaintiff) A Shearer (1st to 3rd Defendants) DFC Thomas (4th Defendant)   Solicitors: Carlisle Attorneys (Plaintiff) Allen & Overy LLP (1st to 3rd Defendants) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (4th Defendant)
File Number(s):	2014/43644
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

1. This matter was listed this morning for the delivery of judgment. Judgment was reserved on 22 August 2016 at the conclusion of a five day hearing in respect of complex events that occurred in 2008.

2. The fourth defendant, Primary Health Care Limited, makes an oral application supported by the other parties to the litigation, that judgment not be delivered and that the matter be adjourned to next week. Mr DFC Thomas, of counsel, for Primary, has indicated from the Bar Table that there have been some "developments overnight". He indicated that the parties are having settlement discussions that are advanced but could not indicate that the parties are close to resolution.

3. Mr Thomas submitted that if the parties were to reach an agreement, the matter would be finally resolved and there would be no further burden of costs upon them by reason of there being no appeal in the matter and no necessity for an assessment of costs. Mr Thomas candidly indicated that even if the parties were to reach agreement in settling all their differences by next week, a further indulgence for deferral of delivery of the judgment for approximately thirty days would be sought because it is anticipated that any settlement would involve one or other of the parties making a payment.

4. Mr Thomas submitted that there would be some public benefit if the delivery of judgment were to be deferred. It seems to me that there is force in that submission. The removal of the prospect of appeal and the consequent costs burden on the parties; the opportunity for the parties to craft their own commercial outcome; and the prospect that there will be no further need to utilise the resources of the Court weigh in favour of the deferral of the delivery of judgment.

5. I list the matter for judgment on Friday, 7 October 2016 at 9.15am.

6. I grant liberty to restore on short notice.

**********

Decision last updated: 29 September 2016