FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Maxwell-Smith v S & E Hall Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 198


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INGE MAXWELL-SMITH & ANOR v S & E HALL PTY LTD

N85 OF 2002

 

HEEREY, LINDGREN AND MERKEL JJ

31 MAY 2002

SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N85 OF 2002

 

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

BETWEEN:

INGE MAXWELL-SMITH

EUGENE MAXWELL-SMITH

APPELLANTS

 

AND:

S & E HALL PTY LTD

RESPONDENT

 

JUDGES:

HEEREY, LINDGREN AND MERKEL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

31 MAY 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

 

1.                    The appeals are dismissed.


2.                  The appellants pay the costs of the repspondent including reserved costs.


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

N85 OF 2002

 

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

BETWEEN:

INGE MAXWELL-SMITH

EUGENE MAXWELL-SMITH

APPELLANTS

 

AND:

S & E HALL PTY LTD

RESPONDENT

 

 

JUDGES:

HEEREY, LINDGREN AND MERKEL JJ

DATE:

31 MAY 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY


THE COURT:

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     The appellants appeal against orders of Allsop J made on 25 January 2002 which:

(1)        dismissed the appellants’ applications against the respondent in N895 and N896 of 2001;

(2)               dismissed the appellants’ applications N7225 and N7226 to set aside a bankruptcy notice dated 26 March 2001; and

(3)               ordered the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs.

2                     The background to this matter involves the construction of a dwelling house by the respondent builder for the appellants.  The complex history of the disputes and litigation between the parties are set out in his Honour’s judgment.  The appellants’ submissions to us essentially repeated the submissions made by them to his Honour.

3                     In our view his Honour was plainly correct, for the reasons he gave, in holding that the appellants are attempting to re-litigate matters that have been determined against them by the Consumer Claims Tribunal and courts of competent jurisdiction in New South Wales.

4                     The appeals will be dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.


I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.



Associate:


Dated:              19 June 2002



Counsel for the Appellants:

The appellants appeared in person



Solicitor for the Appellants:




Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr E Petersen



Solicitor for the Respondent:

Sautelle & White



Date of Hearing:

31 May 2002



Date of Judgment:

31 May 2002