FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v JP Morgan Portfolio Services Limited
(ACN 064 567 040) [2006] FCA 170
DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU, MOXLABIA PTY LTD (ACN 003 564 716), GREENWOOD CHALLONER & CO, ALLAN MARTIN DELANEY AND AM DELANEY NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 001 832 015) v JP MORGAN PORTFOLIO SERVICES LIMITED (ACN 064 567 040)
NSD 2292 OF 2005
MADGWICK J
24 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 2292 OF 2005 |
|
BETWEEN: |
DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU FIRST APPLICANT
MOXLABIA PTY LTD (ACN 003 564 716) SECOND APPLICANT
GREENWOOD CHALLONER & CO THIRD APPLICANT
ALLAN MARTIN DELANEY FOURTH APPLICANT
AM DELANEY NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 001 832 015) FIFTH APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
JP Morgan Portfolio Services LIMItEd (Acn 064 567 040) RESPONDENT
|
|
MADGWICK J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
24 FEBRUARY 2006 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal is granted.
2. Costs will be costs in the cause of the appeal.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 2292 OF 2005 |
|
BETWEEN: |
DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU FIRST APPLICANT
MOXLABIA PTY LTD (ACN 003 564 716) SECOND APPLICANT
GREENWOOD CHALLONER & CO THIRD APPLICANT
ALLAN MARTIN DELANEY FOURTH APPLICANT
AM DELANEY NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 001 832 015) FIFTH APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
JP Morgan Portfolio Services Ltd (Acn 064 567 040) RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
MADGWICK J |
|
DATE: |
24 FEBRUARY 2006 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR:
1 In this application for leave to appeal it seems to me that leave should be granted. It appears that there is a difference of approach between the New South Wales Court of Appeal and the Full Court of the Western Australia Supreme Court, and which approach is taken might well influence the outcome of the application for a permanent stay of the respondent’s suit (which is the matter at issue). Wilcox J preferred the approach of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. It seems to me, nevertheless, that the matter is reasonably arguable, and it is desirable in the public interest, and because of the general importance of the matter, that the Full Court should rule on the matter.
2 The applicant for leave does not press before me an application for a stay of proceedings pending the hearing of the appeal, but accepts that the appropriate forum to consider that issue, if it is to be pressed, is before the docket judge. The respondent to the application, as I understand it, takes no different view.
3 Accordingly leave will be granted.
4 Costs will be costs in the cause of the appeal.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. |
Associate:
Dated: 6 March 2006
|
Counsel for the Applicant: |
Mr D Hammerschlag SC/Mr A P Spencer |
|
Solicitor for the Applicant: |
Holding Redlich |
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Mr J Stoljar |
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Clayton Utz |
|
Date of Hearing: |
24 February 2006 |
|
Date of Judgment: |
24 February 2006 |
