Tilbury, F.A. v Aos Holdings P/L

JUDGMENT No. .....n.~ -,,- 8s.5- 7~

HOT FOR PUBLICATION

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
NEW SOOTII WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. NG 3444/94
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN :
FRANK ALFRED TILBURY
Applicant
AND:
AOS HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
Respondent

coRl4Hx

!3icKvILLE J.

PLACE :

SYDNEY

DATE:

10 November, 1994

16 NOV 1994

AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REGISTRv

HIS HONOUR: In this matter a notice of motion is before the Court, filed on behalf of the cross-applicants. That notice seeks an order that the hearing of the proceedings be expedited. There are a number of other matters by way of declarations or orders sought by reference to the cross-application. These are matters in the nature of interlocutory relief. However, Mr Hutley, who appears on behalf of the applicant in the matter, has indicated that, in his view, the relief sought in paragraph 2 of the notice of motion may require many of the factual and legal issues that would arise in the substantive proceedings to be

canvassed.

Be that as it may, I think the appropriate course in the light of the evidence that has been read, is to make an order for expedition. However, I have explained to counsel representing the parties that such an order cannot carry with it any guarantee that the matter will be heard this year or indeed at any particular time early in the new year. All must depend upon the state of the Court's lists, particularly having regard to the estimate of time, which is that the hearing of the case will occupy three days of court time.

In addition to making the order for expedition on that basis I shall direct the applicant and cross-respondents to file and serve affidavits in response to the material already served on or before 5 pm on 24 November 1994. I shall grant liberty to either party to apply on 48 hours notice. I do that on the basis that my associate will communicate to the solicitors for each of the parties by noon tomorrow what information, if any, has been ascertained as to the likelihood of the case being set down for three days in the foreseeable future.

of an early hearing, then it may be necessary for one or both

Should there be no likelihood, by reason of the Court's lists,

parties to apply for interlocutory relief. That in turn may involve an application to set down a time for the matters to be decided. Of course, it would be necessary at that time for the parties to provide a reasonably precise estimate of how long the interlocutory application would be likely to take. At that time also any orders that might be necessary to ensure that the interlocutory application were ready to be dealt with could be made.

I certify that this and the preceding 2
pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judment of the Honourable Justice

Associate: sachille. M
Dated: 14 November, 1994

Heard	r	10 November, 1994
Placer	Sydney
Decision	r	10 November, 1994

Appearanceer	Mr N.C. Hutley instructed by Blake Dawson
Waldron appeared for the applicant.
Mr G.E. Underwood instructed by Corrs
Chambers Weetgarth appeared for the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Frank Alfred Tilbury v Aos Holdings P/L, the Federal Court of Australia, specifically the New South Wales District Registry, dealt with a notice of motion filed by the cross-applicants. The applicants sought an expedited hearing of the proceedings, along with several other matters in the form of declarations or orders. The case was assigned the number NG 3444/94. The court's primary task was to determine whether the requested expedited hearing was justified and to provide guidance on the procedural steps the parties should take moving forward.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the notice of motion filed by the cross-applicants warranted an expedited hearing of the proceedings. The applicants argued for urgency, while the respondents' counsel raised concerns about the potential need to address substantive issues during the interlocutory phase. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate procedural steps to ensure that the case could proceed efficiently without prejudicing either party's rights.

Justice Hickie, after considering the evidence presented, determined that the case should be expedited. However, the judge explained that while the order for expedition was granted, it did not guarantee that the matter would be heard in the immediate future due to the court's scheduling constraints. The judge also directed the parties to file and serve their response affidavits by a specific deadline and granted liberty to either party to apply for further interlocutory relief if necessary. The decision aimed to balance the need for an expedited hearing with the practical limitations of the court's schedule.

The court's final order included an expedited hearing for the matter, with specific deadlines for the filing of affidavits and a provision for further interlocutory applications if required. The judge's decision aimed to ensure the case proceeded efficiently while considering the practical constraints of the court's scheduling.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established