FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Co Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 203
EUSTACE VON RISEFER, ELIZABETH VON RISEFER, SATOR AUST PTY LTD AND GOLD COAST BARRAMUNDI PTY LTD v PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY PTY LTD AND LATROBE HOME LOANS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Q 106 OF 2000
DOWSETT J
23 FEBRUARY 2001
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 106 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
EUSTACE VON RISEFER
FIRST APPLICANTELIZABETH VON RISEFER
SECOND APPLICANTSATOR AUST PTY LTD
THIRD APPLICANTGOLD COAST BARRAMUNDI PTY LTD
FOURTH APPLICANTAND:
PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENTLATROBE HOME LOANS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 FEBRUARY 2001
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application to join further respondents is refused.
.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 106 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
EUSTACE VON RISEFER
FIRST APPLICANTELIZABETH VON RISEFER
SECOND APPLICANTSATOR AUST PTY LTD
THIRD APPLICANTGOLD COAST BARRAMUNDI PTY LTD
FOURTH APPLICANTAND:
PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENTLATROBE HOME LOANS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
23 FEBRUARY 2001
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I can see nothing in any of the material before me which would justify the proposed joinder of the third to seventh respondents who are named in the amended application which was filed on 16 February. For those reasons I refuse the application to join further respondents.
I certify that the preceding paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 9 March 2001
The Applicants In Person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Drysdale Solicitor for the Respondent: MacGillivrays Date of Hearing: 23 February 2001 Date of Judgment: 23 February 2001
- AGLC
- Von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Co Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 203
- Case
- [2001] FCA 203
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were primarily focused on the procedural aspects of the case, specifically the permissibility of adding further respondents. The court had to consider the timeliness of the application to join additional respondents and whether there were any valid reasons to allow such an amendment. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the inclusion of the additional respondents would unduly prejudice the existing parties or affect the administration of justice.
The court dismissed the application to join further respondents. The reasoning provided by the court indicated that the application was made too late in the proceedings and that there were no compelling reasons to allow the amendment. The court also found that permitting the addition of further respondents would result in significant prejudice to the existing parties, potentially complicating the case and delaying the resolution of the matter. As a result, the application was refused, and the original parties to the litigation remained unchanged.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application to join further respondents is refused.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: DOWSETT J
Full text does not contain this section.