ANDREW JOHN SAKER (AS LIQUIDATOR OF CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)) -v- CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT PTY LTD & ANOR [2000] WASC 44

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 44
Published:	24/02/2000
Case No:	COR:249/1998	Heard:	15 FEBRUARY 2000
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	22/02/00
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application refused
PDF Version

Parties:	ANDREW JOHN SAKER (AS LIQUIDATOR OF CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 066 971 551)) CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 062 984 329) NATURAL SCIENCE CENTRE PTY LTD (ACN 078 432 872) BIO-GENETIC LABORATORY PTY LTD (ACN 063 271 483) CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 078 432 872) BARFAM HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 056 195 655) ANTONY FRANCIS STERLING BARTON THERESE ANNE BARTON
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for consolidation Principles to be applied
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Bellview Investments Pty Ltd v Deans Investments Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of NT; 18 December 1997 Cameron v McBain [1948] VLR 245 Creative Land Management Pty Ltd v Natural Science Centre [1999] WASC 271 Compania Sansinena de Carnes Congeladas v Houlder Brothers & Co Ltd [1910] 2 KB 354 CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Co Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385 Guilfoyle v Bean [1926] VR 498 Hinchliffe v Carroll [1969] VR 164 Re Pacific Hardware Brokers (Qld) Pty Ltd (1998) 16 ACLC 442 Payne v British Time Recorder Co [1921] 2 KB 1 Queensland Estates Pty Ltd v Co-Ownership Land Development Pty Ltd (No 2) [1971] Qd R 164 Tosich Construction Pty Ltd v Tosich (1997) 78 FCR 363 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : ANDREW JOHN SAKER (AS LIQUIDATOR OF CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)) -v- CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT PTY LTD & ANOR [2000] WASC 44 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 15 FEBRUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 22 FEBRUARY 2000 PUBLISHED : 24 FEBRUARY 2000 FILE NO/S : COR 249 of 1998 BETWEEN : ANDREW JOHN SAKER (AS LIQUIDATOR OF CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 066 971 551))

Applicant

AND

CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 062 984 329)

First Respondent

NATURAL SCIENCE CENTRE PTY LTD (ACN 078 432 872)

Second Respondent

FILE NO/S : CIV 1467 of 1998 BETWEEN : CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 062 984 329)

Plaintiff

AND

(Page 2)

NATURAL SCIENCE CENTRE PTY LTD (ACN 078 432 872)

First Defendant

BIO-GENETIC LABORATORY PTY LTD (ACN 063 271 483)

Second Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 1496 of 1999 BETWEEN : CREATIVE LAND MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 078 432 872)

Plaintiff

AND

BARFAM HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 056 195 655)

First Defendant

ANTONY FRANCIS STERLING BARTON

Second Defendant

THERESE ANNE BARTON

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for consolidation - Principles to be applied

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application refused

(Page 3)

Representation:

COR 249 of 1998

Counsel:

Applicant…

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 Saker v Creative Land Management 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: [2000] WASC 44
Decision Date: 24 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Saker filed an application against Creative Land Management Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the consolidation of three separate proceedings. The applicants sought to combine these proceedings to ensure a more efficient and cost-effective resolution of the common issues at hand. The court was tasked with determining whether the consolidation of these cases was appropriate under the principles governing case management and judicial economy. The legal issues revolved around whether the proposed consolidation would lead to a just and efficient resolution of the matters and whether there were any overriding considerations that might warrant separate proceedings.

The court considered the principles of judicial economy and the efficiency of court resources, weighing these against the need for fairness to all parties involved. It examined the commonality of issues, the parties involved, and the potential for prejudice or unfairness to any party. The court concluded that while there were significant overlaps in the proceedings, the specific circumstances of each case were such that consolidation would not serve the interests of justice. The court found that maintaining separate proceedings would better protect the rights of the parties and ensure that each case could be heard and decided on its individual merits.

As a result of its deliberations, the court decided to refuse the application for consolidation. The court's decision was grounded in its assessment that consolidation would not achieve the desired efficiencies without compromising the fairness and individual justice of each proceeding. Consequently, the application for consolidation was dismissed, and the separate proceedings were to continue as they had been. This decision underscores the court's commitment to balancing judicial economy with the imperative of ensuring just outcomes in each individual case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.