FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| First Applicant SAMIRA KHOURY Second Applicant | |
AND: | First Respondent ALLIANCE CAPITAL CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 102 712 836 Second Respondent QUEENSLAND DIRECT FINANCE PTY LTD ACN 112 372 111 Third Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | 18 January 2011 |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to Order 52, rule 10 of the Federal Court Rules leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment of the Court made on 30 November 2010 is given to the applicants in the proceeding.
2. The costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | QUD 525 of 2010 |
BETWEEN: | MANUEL KHOURY First Applicant SAMIRA KHOURY Second Applicant
|
AND: | BALDEV SINGH SIDHU First Respondent ALLIANCE CAPITAL CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 102 712 836 Second Respondent QUEENSLAND DIRECT FINANCE PTY LTD ACN 112 372 111 Third Respondent
|
JUDGE: | GREENWOOD J |
DATE: | 18 JANUARY 2011 |
PLACE: | BRISBANE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 By this application, the applicants in the proceeding seek leave pursuant to Order 52, rule 10(2) of the Federal Court Rules to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Court made on 30 November 2010 by which 11 orders were made including orders granting leave to the respondents to amend their defence in terms of a proposed Amended Defence described as version 2, other than by paras 73 to 81 of the proposed Amended Defence.
2 The applicants in the proceeding seek leave to appeal from the entirety of the interlocutory judgment consisting of those interlocutory orders.
3 The applicants are content to have the question of leave dealt with on the papers. Yesterday, the solicitors for the respondents advised that they too are content to have the application for leave dealt with on the papers.
4 I am satisfied that leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment ought to be given as the interlocutory judgment gives rise to an important question of the scope of the discretion to be exercised under s 87 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and s 12GM of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (the “ASIC Act”) in framing orders that serve the statutory purpose of compensating a claimant in whole or in part for the loss or damage suffered by conduct in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act and the analogue of that provision in the ASIC Act having regard to the discussion of those matters that arguably inform the exercise of the discretion under s 87 set out at [56] to [93] of the interlocutory judgment.
5 A further aspect of the interlocutory judgment concerns a direction that the parties file submissions in relation to costs. Having regard to recent matters affecting Brisbane and counsel’s absence, the respondents will not be in a position to file submissions until 18 February 2011. Having regard to the grant of leave, there is no immediate urgency in disposing of the question of costs. That matter will be dealt with immediately upon receipt of submissions from the respondents on 18 February 2011.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood. |
Associate:
Dated: 18 January 2011
