Zohios, H. v Fairfield Chase Pty Ltd

[1990] FCA 252

JUDGMENT NO. ..d.%../ ..?@ ......

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )	Nos. G 721 of 1989
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )	G 723 of 1989

GENERAL DIVISION 1 G 724 of 1989 G 727 of 1989 G 728 of 1989 G 746 of 1989 G 780 of 1989 G 782 of 1989 G 869 of 1989 G 870 of 1989 G 876 of 1989

BETWEEN:  HARALAUBOS ZOHIOS & ORS

14 ] U N 1990 Applicants

FEDERAL COURT OF

AUSTRALIA	AND: FAIRFIELD CHASE PTY
PRINCIPAL	LIMITED & ORS
REGISTRY

Respondents

EX TENPORE JUDGMENT

Einfeld J 8 May 1990

There is listed for tomorrow a series of motions for leave to adduce evidence by way of similar facts on behalf of the applicants in the cases fixed for hearing to commence on 18 June, and motions to add Mr Richardson as a further respondent to these proceedings.

These motions were listed for tomorrow with some difficulty to a number of parties and to the Court, and a number of directions by way of a timetable for preparation were given in order to ensure that the matters would be ready for hearing tomorrow and on Thursday. It now turns out that none of those directions have been complied with, and the explanation given, now, been solicitor for the applicants, is that his I am sure genuinely on the part of the person who has, up till

instructions were that the matters were in the process of being settled and no further expenditure should be incurred other than for the purposes of securing those settlements.

A great deal of indulgence has been permitted to the applicants

in the course of this litigation. When it originally came before the Court more than six months ago, it was said to be urgent. Since that time these cases have been given great priority, including the exclusive services of one Judge. In the course of that time, very little appears to have actually been achieved. What has been achieved has almost always been long after the dates fixed, in almost every case because of the applicants.

In my opinion - and I have given notice of this developing view of mine before now on more than one occasion including in formal judgments on various interlocutory aspects of the case - the time has long gone in which these indulgences can be further tolerated. This is serious litigation in which, if there was a balance of hardship at some stage in favour of the applicants, it now seems to have passed from the applicants to

others.

There is absolutely no evidence, apart from anecdotal material from Mr Tzovaras (the applicant's solicitor) in which I am sure he genuinely believes but which is not supported by an affidavit from any applicant, nor by the presence of any applicant here today to assert by evidence which can be tested, as to the reasons why the various directions and conditions

that were placed upon the fixing of the hearing of these
notices of motion for tomorrow have not been complied with.

I can see no reason at all why I should accept this form of treatment either of the Court or of the other parties, or of the solemnity and seriousness of the litigation itself, by giving any further extensions to the applicants to file the necessary material.

As there is no material before the Court to support the motions, I dismiss the motions to join Hr Richardson as a respondent, and for the adducing of similar fact evidence, and order that the applicants pay the respondent's costs including any reserved costs applicable to those motions.

There are also before the Court four motions for summary judgment by the first respondent against a number of the applicants not included in the first batch for hearing commencing on 18 June. These motions are fixed for Friday 11 Hay. I refuse the relevant applicantsr (respondents to the motions) application to adjourn those motions, and they will

proceed on Friday as presently planned. The relevant applicants	are to be present on that occasion.
I shall also list for directions at the same time the cases due to commence hearlng on 18 June, to hear a report either from the applicants themselves or from M Tzovaras as to the intention of these litigants to proceed with their cases on 18 June, as to their intended representation on that occasion, and for any necessary directions to ensure that the hearing is ready to proceed.
The applicants in these cases are to attend that directions hearing which will commence at 9.30, and will be followed by the four summary judgment applications.
The time limit for the filing of affidavit evidence by the interests of MS Bonnefin and the Richardson Group by or on behalf of the first respondent is extended to 4 pm on 21 May.

t

I cert~fy that thls and the %c

preced~ng ppqes are a true copy of the

Reasons for Juegrnent here~n of h ~ s Honour

Just~ce E~nfeld

A s s o c ~ a g p

l	Dated. g	/Yk, /qfO
L . ,	Y	h