Trazblend v Simon Mathews Aviation

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TRAZBLEND v SIMON MATHEWS AVIATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 452

TRADE PRACTICES – Whether the second respondent was a person involved in the first respondent’s contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1984 (Cth) – whether the defence of the first respondent should be struck out – whether a claim arises under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Trade Practices Act 1984 (Cth), s.82(1)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Applicant: TRAZBLEND PTY LIMITED

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

SIMON MATHEWS AVIATION PTY LTD

ACN 093 712 406

SIMON PETER MATHEWS 

File Number: SYG 2416 of 2005

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 30 March 2006

Date of Last Submission: 30 March 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 30 March 2006

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: G. Stilanov

ORDERS

1. The second respondent’s defence struck out.

2. Verdict and judgment for the applicant against the second respondent.

3. The second respondent to pay the applicant damages of $87,025.

4. The second respondent to pay the applicant interest upon the said sum at the prescribed rate from 12 April 2005, being the date when the arrangements were determined by the applicant, until judgment.

5. The second respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs according to Part 21, Rule 21.02(2) (b) and Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

6. This judgment is stayed for 14 days during which time the second respondent may file an application and affidavit in support for orders setting aside these orders, such application forthwith after filing to be served upon the applicant.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2416 of 2005

TRZBLEND PTY LIMITED

Applicant

And

SIMON MATHEWS AVIATION PTY LTD ACN 093 712 406

First Respondent

SIMON PETER MATHEWS
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In these proceedings an original application was filed in the Federal Court on 22 July 2005 to which the second respondent entered a notice of appearance on 9 August 2005, the first respondent being a company in administration. On 26 August 2005 the second respondent filed a response.  On 10 August 2005 the matter was transferred into this court by Madgwick J. On 4 October 2005 Short Minutes of Order were entered by consent providing for certain further and better particulars to be responded to and others to be requested.  There was also provision for discovery. On 23 November 2005 Federal Magistrate Barnes made further orders requiring responses to the request for further and better particulars and for discovery and placed the matter into my list on 25 January at 9.30.  On that day I made orders including an order that the applicant file and serve an amended statement of claim on or before 8 February 2006 and that the second respondent file and serve its defence by 22 February.  Other consequential orders relating to the filing of affidavits were made.  An amended application was filed on 8 February but no response to that was provided by the second respondent.

2. On 22 March the matter came before me again when the second…