Unilever Aust Ltd v George Karounos

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Unilever Aust Ltd v George Karounos & Anor [2001] FCA 238

UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 050 828) v

GEORGE KAROUNOS AND ANOTHER

NG 732 of 1998

HILL J
8 MARCH 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 732 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 050 828)
APPLICANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT

AND:

GEORGE KAROUNOS
SECOND RESPONDENT/SECOND CROSS-CLAIMANT

REVELINU PTY LIMITED (ACN 067 545 117)
[in voluntary administration] (previously known as
RFC Nominees Pty Limited)
FIRST CROSS-CLAIMANT

SABRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT/THIRD CROSS-CLAIMANT

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 MARCH 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an adjournment be refused.

2.The application for leave to appeal against the order that Mr Karounos pay into court within 8 days the sum of $8,000 as security for the costs thrown away by the adjournment on 21 February 2001 be refused.

3.The application for leave to appeal against the decision that there was a case to answer be refused.

4.The applicant on the motion, Mr Karounos, pay the costs of Unilever Australia Limited of each application for leave to appeal.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 732 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

UNILEVER AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 050 828)
APPLICANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT

AND:

GEORGE KAROUNOS
SECOND RESPONDENT/SECOND CROSS-CLAIMANT

REVELINU PTY LIMITED (ACN 067 545 117)
[in voluntary administration] (previously known as
RFC Nominees Pty Limited)
FIRST CROSS-CLAIMANT

SABRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT/THIRD CROSS-CLAIMANT

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE:	8 MARCH 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The present application by Unilever Australia Limited (“Unilever”) was last before me on 20 and 21 February 2001.  At that time, and I have to say for the second time, the applicant went into evidence.  At the request of Mr Karounos, the second respondent to the proceedings, the application was adjourned on 20 February 2001 until the next morning at which time Mr Karounos, not for the first time, sought an adjournment of the proceedings as well as submitting that there was no case for him to answer.  I gave him an adjournment, although ordering that he pay an amount of $8,000 into court as security for the costs of Unilever thrown away by yet another adjournment.  I also rejected the submission which he made that there was no case to answer.  Although requested to by Unilever, I did not as such seek an undertaking from Mr Karounos that he not apply for any further adjournment, but I indicated to him in quite explicit terms that an adjournment would not be granted on the next occasion, except in the most exceptional circumstances.  The ex tempore judgment I gave at the time, as revised, has been distributed to the parties.

2. When the matter was called this morning, Mr Karounos was represented by Mr Royle of Donaldson Walsh.  Mr Royle indicated that he had accepted instructions to…