FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Darcy v Medtel Pty Limited (No 4) [2004] FCA 1599
PATRICK NOEL DARCY in a representative capacity on behalf of the persons referred to in par 1 of the Third Amended Statement of Claim v MEDTEL PTY LIMITED & Anor
NSD 932 of 2001
SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
3 DECEMBER 2004
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 932 of 2001 |
|
BETWEEN: |
PATRICK NOEL DARCY in a representative capacity on behalf of the persons referred to in par 1 of the Third Amended Statement of Claim APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MEDTEL PTY LIMITED (acn 076 530 946) FIRST RESPONDENT
PACESETTER INC a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 15900 Valley View Court, Sylmar, California SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
SACKVILLE J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
3 DECEMBER 2004 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(a) the Deed of Settlement which is Annexure 1 to these Orders; and
(b) the Settlement Scheme which is Annexure 2 to these Orders;
be approved for the purposes of s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976(Cth) (‘the Act’).
- The proceedings be dismissed but without prejudice to such entitlement as the Respondents may have to re-list the proceedings before this Court pursuant to cl 2.7 of Sch 1 to the Deed of Settlement.
- All costs orders be vacated.
- The parties be granted liberty to apply in relation to any costs orders sought.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
- The group members affected by these Orders are the 160 persons or representatives of deceased estates identified in the affidavit of Kathryn Tanos sworn on 6 December 2004.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
ANNEXURE 1 TO THE ORDERS
ANNEXURE 2 TO THE ORDERS
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 932 of 2001 |
|
BETWEEN: |
PATRICK NOEL DARCY in a representative capacity on behalf of the persons referred to in par 1 of the Third Amended Statement of Claim APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MEDTEL PTY LIMITED (acn 076 530 946) FIRST RESPONDENT
PACESETTER INC a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 15900 Valley View Court, Sylmar, California SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
SACKVILLE J |
|
DATE: |
3 DECEMBER 2004 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 In this matter, the issues in substance are identical to those that I have dealt with in Courtney v Medtel Pty Limited (No 6) [2004] FCA 1598. I have been provided with detailed written submissions which I have initialled and placed with the file. Those submissions, in the light of my earlier judgment in Courtney v Medtel (No 6), satisfy me that the settlement ought to be approved pursuant to s 33V(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
2 The orders will follow the same form as those that are to be made in Courtney v Medtel (No 6). I note that the respondents have undertaken to write to the 10 persons who were thought to be Remaining Group Members but in fact were not. In this respect, the respondents will follow the same course as in Courtney v Medtel (No 6).
3 An affidavit has been filed identifying the 160 Remaining Group Members who are bound by the judgment.
4 I will qualify the orders by reserving to the parties, notwithstanding the dismissal of the proceedings, liberty to apply in relation to any cost orders that any party says ought to be made.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville. |
Associate:
Dated: 7 December 2004
|
Counsel for the Applicant: |
P Cashman with R Gilsenan |
|
Solicitor for the Applicant: |
Maurice Blackburn Cashman |
|
Counsel for the Respondents: |
SS Clark with C Harris |
|
Solicitor for the Respondents: |
Clayton Utz |
|
Date of Hearing: |
3 December 2004 |
|
Date of Judgment: |
3 December 2004 |
