FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Mhanna v Sovereign Capital Ltd [2007] FCA 1279



 


 


 


 


JOHN MHANNA AND ORS v SOVEREIGN CAPITAL LTD

 

NSD908 OF 2004

 

 

 

EMMETT J

10 AUGUST 2007

SYDNEY



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 908 OF 2004

 

BETWEEN:

JOHN MHANNA

First Plaintiff

 

EMAN SHONODA

Second Plaintiff

 

HIGHWATCH PTY LIMITED

(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)

(ACN 101 120 839)

Third Plaintiff

 

AND:

SOVEREIGN CAPITAL LTD

Defendant

 

 

 

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

 

1.                   The proceeding be dismissed.

2.                   The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding.


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

NSD 908 OF 2004

 

 

BETWEEN:

JOHN MHANNA

First Plaintiff

 

EMAN SHONODA

Second Plaintiff

 

HIGHWATCH PTY LIMITED

(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)

(ACN 101 120 839)

Third Plaintiff

 

AND:

SOVEREIGN CAPITAL LTD

Defendant

 

 

 

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

10 AUGUST 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This matter is in Conti J’s docket.  Conti J is due to retire at the end of next week.  There is currently an application for summary dismissal made on behalf of the defendant which has not yet been finalised.  That application was filed a considerable time ago on 29 September 2006.  The matter was listed for directions before me some weeks ago in order to determine whether the plaintiffs wish to proceed with the matter. 

2                     On 1 August 2007 the Registry of the Court wrote to the plaintiffs informing them that the defendant’s motion for summary dismissal was to be listed for directions today.  When the matter was called this morning, there was no appearance for the plaintiffs and the solicitor for the defendant therefore asked the Court to dismiss the proceeding. 

3                     The proceeding has been stood over generally from time to time in the past and the applicant has shown no interest in pursuing the proceeding.  In the circumstances it is appropriate to accede to the defendant’s request. 


 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.



Associate:


Dated:         20 August 2007



The Plaintiff did not appear.

 

 

Solicitor for the Defendant:

Reimer Winter Williamson

 

 

Date of Hearing:

10 August 2007

 

 

Date of Judgment:

10 August 2007