Trustees of the De La Salle Brothers v Security Mailing Services Pty Ltd

[1991] FCA 888

h-<- 'I" :-C

' R ! h

JUDGMENT

JN THE F E D E ~ COURT OF AUSTRALIA NO. QG 116 c

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN:  TRUSTEES OF THE DE LA SALLE BROTHERS
JA.C.N. 010 976 3601

Applicant

AND :  $ECURITY MAILING SERVICES PTY. LTD.
(A.C.N. 002 012 3201

First Respondent

AND :  WILLIAM RANDALL and PETER RAYMOND DAVIES

Second Respondents

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER:	18 SEPTEMBER 1991
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Any further material to be relied on by the respondents be filed and served on or before Friday

27 September 1991.

2.    Any further material to be relied on by the applicant be filed and served on or before Tuesday 1 October 1991.

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

3.    The further hearing of the matter be adjourned to Monday 7 October 1991 at 4.15 p.m.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

4 .    If the parties would prefer they may inform the court that the further hearing is not required and lodge written submissions on or before Friday 4 October 1991.

5.    Costs of today be reserved.

IN THE F E D E ~ COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QG 116 of 1991

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	)
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN:  TRUSTEES OF THE DE LA SALLE BROTHERS
JA.C.N. 010 976 3601

Applicant

AND: SECURITY MAILING SERVICES PTY. LTD.

JA.C.N. 002 012 3201

First Respondent

AND: WILLIAM RANDALL and PETER RAYMOND DAVIES

Second Respondents

R AM - : PINCUS J.

PLACE: BRISBANE

m: 18 SEPTEMBER 1991

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for interlocutory relief. I

do not propose to deal with the facts in any detail. It is

enough to say that it is a dispute about the use of a long and
supposedly valuable list of potential charitable donees -

donees in the sense that they are people who have or purport

to have a record of purchasing expensive charitable lottery

tickets.

The course I propose to take is to adjourn the
matter, principally to enable each side to improve their
position if they think they can. The reason I have taken that
course is that, although one would hope that a full trial of
the matter could be got on this year, there seems to me to be
no certainty of that, and there may not be a trial till

February or March. Another is that, as counsel seem to agree, it is a case in which the interlocutory steps and particularly discovery would be complicated. It therefore seems likely that there will be a considerable delay before trial, of some months.

During that period of time, if the applicants have a

good case, then one would expect and hope that they could
prove their damage. On the other hand, I can see practical
difficulties in their doing so. It may be that the records
which the respondents keep, whatever order I make, might not
in the result lead to the applicants being able to prove
damage with certainty. It does not require much thought to
see the practical difficulties that could arise.

Therefore, I am moved by the consideration that if the applicant has a good case, it is desirable to give it an injunction. That is so despite the many difficulties in

framing an order which have been discussed with counsel, and

it is for these reasons that I have decided to adjourn the

matter, so that I can form a better view of the merits.

It is a case in which, as it seems to me, an

injunction should not be granted unless the applicant seems to
have a very strong chance of success, but if it has a very
strong chance of success, I think an injunction in some form
should go. The counsel on each side have said that, given a
little more time, they might be able to improve their
position, and certainly it is of great interest to know

whether the unexplained anomalies in the mailihg as derived
from the respondents can be explained. Mr. Lyons'

instructions are that, given more time, they might be able to

be. So, the orders I will make are as follows. I will order

that any further material to be relied on by the respondents

be filed and served on or before 27 September, which is a

Friday. I will order that any further material to be relied

on by the applicant be filed and served on or before Tuesday,

1 October.	I will adjourn the further hearing of the matter
to Monday, 7 October 1991 at 4.15 pm.	I will direct that if

the parties would prefer, they may inform me that the further
hearing is not required and lodge written submissions on or

before Friday, 4 October.

I certify that this and the
two preceding pages are a
true copy of the reasons
for judgment herein of his

Honour Mr Justice Pincus

--7

c- --3- >hw-cCI

Associate