Swick Nominees Pty Ltd v Norncott Pty Ltd
[2013] WASCA 184
•9 AUGUST 2013
SWICK NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- NORNCOTT PTY LTD [2013] WASCA 184
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASCA 184 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | 09/08/2013 | ||
| Case No: | CACV:61/2013 | 24 JULY 2013 | |
| Coram: | PULLIN JA MURPHY JA | 24/07/13 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal as against the first respondent dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SWICK NOMINEES PTY LTD NORNCOTT PTY LTD LEROI INTERNATIONAL INC |
Catchwords: | Appeal Whether appeal incompetent against the first respondent First respondent a deregistered company No judgment to appeal against |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Swick Nominees Pty Ltd T/As Swick Drilling Australia v Norncott Pty Ltd [No 3] [2013] WASC 173 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SWICK NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- NORNCOTT PTY LTD [2013] WASCA 184 CORAM : PULLIN JA
- MURPHY JA
- Appellant
AND
NORNCOTT PTY LTD
First Respondent
LEROI INTERNATIONAL INC
Second Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : ALLANSON J
Citation : SWICK NOMINEES PTY LTD T/As SWICK DRILLING AUSTRALIA -v- NORNCOTT PTY LTD [No 3] [2013] WASC 173
File No : CIV 1252 of 2000
Catchwords:
Appeal - Whether appeal incompetent against the first respondent - First respondent a deregistered company - No judgment to appeal against
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal as against the first respondent dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr C J Sweeney
First Respondent : No appearance
Second Respondent : Mr N D C Dillon
Solicitors:
Appellant : Eastwood Sweeney Law
First Respondent : No appearance
Second Respondent : Minter Ellison
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Swick Nominees Pty Ltd T/As Swick Drilling Australia v Norncott Pty Ltd [No 3] [2013] WASC 173
1 REASONS OF THE COURT: On 24 July 2013, this court ordered that the appeal against Norncott Pty Ltd (Norncott) be dismissed. These are the reasons for that decision.
2 The appellant sued Norncott and the second respondent for damages. The trial was conducted in November and December 2012, and Allanson J reserved his decision on 17 December 2012. Norncott did not participate in the trial. It had, at some time in the past, been deregistered but then reinstated and it was in existence as a company during the course of the trial. However, on 27 January 2013, Norncott was again deregistered.
3 Allanson J published his reasons for decision on 9 May 2013, and the reasons reveal that his Honour would have awarded damages against Norncott, although not in the amount claimed by the appellant. Allanson J learned that Norncott had been deregistered, and his Honour's reasons concluded with the statement that he would not enter judgment until he knew whether Norncott was registered: Swick Nominees Pty Ltd T/As Swick Drilling Australia v Norncott Pty Ltd [No 3] [2013] WASC 173 [207]. The appellant informed this court that steps are being taken to have Norncott reinstated.
4 On 29 May 2013, the appellant appealed. The appellant filed an amended appeal notice on 16 July 2013. The amended notice of appeal alleges that, in effect, Allanson J dismissed an aspect of the claim against Norncott. The appellant has commenced an appeal naming a non-existent entity concerning a non-existent judgment.
5 The appellant said that steps were being taken to reinstate Norncott and that if that happened, an application would then be made for judgment to be entered against Norncott. If that happens, the appellant will then have a right of appeal. This appeal, insofar as it is against Norncott, is incompetent. For those reasons, the appeal was dismissed in relation to Norncott.
0
1
1