Ryder v Morley

[1986] FCA 437

457

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	V. No. G 109 of 1983
)

DIVISION	GENERAL	)
BETWEEN:

JEX CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED

(in its capacity as trustee of the

Jet Corporation of Australia Trust) Applicant

and

PETRES PTY. LIMITED AND OTHERS Respondents

COURT: NORTHROP J.

m:	6 OCTOBER 1986
PLACE :	MELBOURNE

MINUTE OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the motion be refused with costs.

(Settlement and entry of orders is dealt	with in 0.36 of	the
Rules of Court.)

'NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION'

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	v. NO. G 109 of 1983
)

DIVISION GENERAL )

JET CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED

(in Its capacity a6 trustee of the

Jet Corporation	of Australia Trust)	Applicant
and

PETRES PTY. LIMITED AND OTHERS Respondents

COURT: NORTHROP	J
U: 6 OCTOBER
PLACE: .MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant, Jet Corporatlon of Australia Pty.

Limited ("Jet Corporation"), is moving the Court, upon

notlce, for the revlew of the decision on reconslderatlon of

a taxlng officer of the Court made on 21 May 1986. The

motion is brought pursuant to	0.62	r.44(1) of the Rules of
Court. That sub-rule provides:-

"44. (1) Where a taxlng officer gives a

certificate in accordance with his decislon on

reconsideration under rule 43 and pursuant to that rule a party requests the taxing officer to state his reasons for the decision, the Court shall, on motion by any party interested, review the decision

of the taxing officer on reconsideration."

- 2 -

Tn'ne conditions precedent for the revlew, as speclfled In that

sub-rule, have befn satlsfled. The taxlng officer's reasons

for declsion are dated 21 May 1986.

The issue ralsed by the motion results from the

form of an order made by a Full Court of thls Court on 6 July

1964, but In order to understand that issue, it is necessary

to set out in summary form the events which led to the maklng

of that order.

In June 1983, Jet Corporation, together wlth two

other companies whlch are no longer parties to the

proceedings, instituted proceedings in this Court against a

large number of respondents lncludlng Barry John Collier and

Lmdsay Quentin Hogg, who, initially, were represented by the

one solicitor and counsel. By motion, notice of which was given on 27 July 1983, a group of respondents including

Messrs. Collier and Hogg sought orders that the proceedings

against them be stayed or dismissed, alternatively, that Jet

Corporation give security for costs. Two other groups of

respondents, by motion, sought similar orders in favour of

each of those groups. On 4 October 1983, the Court, as

presently constltuted, made a number of orders wlth respect

to those motions lncludlng the fol1owlng:-

"1. The Motlons by the Respondents that the

proceedlngs be stayed or dismissed generally

or in part be each dismlssed.

- 3 -

2 . The Motions by the Respondents that the

Applicants provlde security for…