AND:
THE PROPRIETORS OF PARADISE PARK RESORTS 1. 3. 4 . 6. 7. 8. 10. 11, 13 AND 14 ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER

OF GADENSTONE PTY . LTD. (SAVE

DEFENDANTS L

Eleventh ApUlicant

1 C MAR 1993
FEDERAL COURT OF

BROOKCHESTER PTY. LTD. (IN LIOUIDATION

First Respondent

GEMMERLEY PTY. LTD.

Second Resoondent

GADENSTONE PTY. LTD. NOW NAMED CENTRE
MANAGEMENT PTY. LTD.

Third Respondent

AND:

PARADISE PARK RESORT COMMON AREA PTY. LTD.

Fourth Respondent

AND:
CENTURY 21 DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

Fifth Respondent

AND:
PAUL ROY JONES

Sixth Respondent

m:
JENNIFER LOUISE JONES

Seventh Respondent

AND:
PENELOPE HEANEY

Eiahth Respondent

m:
MICHAEL HEANEY

Ninth Resoondent

m:
RENT SOUAD PTY. LTD. NOW NAMED WESTCORP REAL ESTATE PTY. LTD. trading as CORPORATE CONTROL

Tenth Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

E R A M : Cooper J.

PLACE : Brisbane
m: 4 March, 1993
THE COURT ORDERS :-
1. On the notice of motion filed on 10 November, 1992, that the sixth and seventh respondents pay the applicants to the motion costs of and incidental to the motion to be taxed.
2. On the notice of motion filed on 16 February 1993, that the respondents to that motion, being the second to tenth respondents to the principal application, pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion to be taxed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
9 A

GENERAL DIVISION

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NO. G95 of 1992
BETWEEN:
THE PROPRIETORS OF "PARADISE PARK RESORT
ONE BUP 6865"

First Applicant

- AND:
THE PROPRIETORS OF "PARADISE PARK RESORT
THREE BUP 6945"

Second Applicant

AND:
THE PROPRIETORS OF "PARADISE PARK RESORT
FOUR BUP 7274"

Third Applicant

I

I m:

THE PROPRIETORS OF "PARADISE PARK RESORT
SIX BUP 7405

Fourth Applicant

m:
THE PROPRIETORS OF "PARADISE PARK RESORT
SEVEN BUP 7509"

Fifth Applicant

AND:
THE PROPRIETORS OF "PARADISE PARK RESORT
EIGHT BUP 7296"

Sixth Apvlicant

AND :
THE PROPRIETORS OF "PARADISE PARK RESORT
TEN BUP 7007"

Seventh Applicant

m:
THE PROPRIETORS OF "PARADISE PARK RESORT
ELEVEN BUP…

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.

Continue reading The Proprietors of Paradise Park Resort One Bup 6865 v Brook...

Details

AGLC: The Proprietors of Paradise Park Resort One Bup 6865 v Brookchester Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [1993] FCA 108
Case: [1993] FCA 108
Decision Date: 4 Mar 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard a case involving multiple applicants, all proprietors of various Paradise Park Resort properties, against several respondents, including Brookchester Pty Ltd in liquidation and other entities. The dispute centered around compliance with court orders related to the delivery of a defence and the filing of an affidavit of documents. The applicants sought enforcement of these orders and relief in the form of costs and compliance.

The court was required to determine whether the respondents' persistent failure to comply with court-set timelines justified the applicants' issuance of proceedings to enforce compliance. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were justifiable reasons for the delay and whether the applicants were entitled to costs associated with the notices of motion.

The court found that the respondents had repeatedly failed to adhere to the court's timelines, both those set by the judge and those agreed upon by consent. Despite attempts to negotiate a timetable, the respondents did not take up the opportunity, and no justifiable explanation was provided for the delay. The judge noted that the respondents should have applied for an extension if they faced difficulties. The court concluded that the applicants had to resort to legal proceedings to enforce compliance. The judge ruled that the applicants were entitled to costs associated with the notices of motion but decided against making a special order for immediate taxation and payment of costs, considering the ongoing mediation process and the absence of overall prejudice to the applicants.

The court ordered that the sixth and seventh respondents pay the applicants' costs for the notice of motion filed on 10 November 1992, and that the second to tenth respondents pay the applicants' costs for the notice of motion filed on 16 February 1993. The notice of motion was adjourned to 19 March 1993 for further consideration.

Orders