FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pampered Paws Connection Pty Ltd v Pets Paradise Franchising (Qld) Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 431
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appellant be given leave to pursue the appeal against the fourth and sixth respondents (each in liquidation) limited to the prosecution of the appeal until judgment.
2. The appellant be excluded from seeking costs against the fourth and sixth respondents (each in liquidation) in the prosecution of the appeal.
3. Orders not be sealed until 12 noon on 10 May 2013.
4. The fourth and sixth respondents, by their liquidators, are each given until 5 pm on 8 May 2013 to apply to have the first and second orders made today varied or discharged.
5. There be no order as to costs of the hearing of 6 May 2013.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | SAD 72 of 2013 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: | PAMPERED PAWS CONNECTION PTY LTD (ACN 116 460 621) (ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY) First Appellant ELIZABETH MARGARET MUIR CAMPBELL Second Appellant LYNDA JANE ELIZABETH DONNELLY Third Appellant
|
AND: | PETS PARADISE FRANCHISING (QLD) PTY LTD (ACN 054 406 272) First Respondent PETS PARADISE FRANCHISING (SA) PTY LTD (ACN 069 620 391) Second Respondent PETS PARADISE FRANCHISING (NSW) PTY LTD (ACN 060 679 647) Third Respondent GLOBAL PET PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 005 666 599) Fourth Respondent PETS PARADISE (FRANCHISING) PTY LTD (ACN 066 626 455) Fifth Respondent PETS PARADISE PTY LTD (ACN 005 558 378) Sixth Respondent PARADISE RETAIL HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 105 253 441) Seventh Respondent GARY DIAMOND Eighth Respondent
|
JUDGE: | MANSFIELD J |
DATE: | 10 MAY 2013 |
PLACE: | ADELAIDE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 I am obviously familiar with the background to this appeal, including the relationship of the various respondents to each other, including the fourth and sixth respondents to the appeals.
2 Up to this point, all of the respondents’ interests have been treated as common. They were represented by one set of counsel through the hearing. Nothing was put in the course of the hearing which would distinguish, in any meaningful way, the interests of the fourth and sixth respondents from that of the other respondents. The other respondents are represented and I assume will attend the hearing through counsel to resist the appeal.
3 It is a matter for the liquidators of the two companies whether they simply “ride on” those submissions, or whether they seek to make separate submissions, or whether they are separately represented. I cannot see, at present, why they should not simply ride on the existing representation. I cannot see how their circumstances would be adversely affected if the appeal were allowed to proceed against the fourth and sixth respondents on the limited basis which the terms of the orders propose.
4 I propose, therefore, to make orders in the terms sought by the appellant. In case there is anything of significance which I have overlooked and which the fourth and sixth respondents have not brought to my attention, I will make the orders but direct they not be sealed until Friday of this week.
5 The orders will be:
(1) The appellant be given leave to pursue the appeal against the fourth and sixth respondents (each in liquidation) limited to the prosecution of the appeal until judgment.
(2) The appellant be excluded from seeking costs against the fourth and sixth respondents (each in liquidation) in the prosecution of the appeal.
(3) These orders not be sealed until 12 noon on 10 May 2013.
(4) The fourth and sixth respondents, by their liquidators, are each given until 5 pm on 8 May 2013 to apply to have the first and second orders made today varied or discharged.
6 There will be no costs of today’s hearing. So the fifth order will be:
(5) No order as to costs of today’s hearing.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Mansfield. |
Associate:
