CORRIGENDA AND ADDENDUM

TO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF EMMETT J

DELIVERED ON 3 DECEMBER 1998

1.      On page 10 of judgment, thirteenth line, following the words “Henry v Henry” delete “(1996) 135 ALR 564” and substitute “(1996) 185 CLR 571”.

2.      Page 16 of judgment, second line, insert “be” after the words “it would”.

3.      Page 47 of judgment, above the heading “Conclusion as to Stay Applications”, insert the following:

DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS

Once it is accepted that section 11 has the effect which I have held it has and that there has been no ad hoc submission, there is no basis for contending that the Federal Court is a clearly inappropriate forum for the claims against United.  The principles enunciated in Voth and Henry have no application in the present case.  That is to say, I do not consider that it would be oppressive or vexatious (as those terms are explained in Henry at 587) for Hi-Fert to prosecute its claim against United in the Federal Court.  That is to say, it would not be “seriously and unfairly burdensome, prejudicial or damaging”.  Nor would it be “productive of serious and unjustified trouble and harassment”.

4.      On page 47 of judgment, in the fifth line under the heading “Conclusion as to Stay Applications”, before the words “Hi-Fert and Hyundai”, insert the following:

“However, the claims against Hyundai which can be characterised as contractual claims should be stayed.”

Replacement pages are attached.

I certify that this is a true copy of

corrigenda and addendum made

to the reasons for judgment in this

matter of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:        

Dated:              30 December 1998