Kurniadi v Loh [2005] FCA 49

Kurniadi v Loh [2005] FCA 49

Consolidation has not led to efficient progress; applicants in W9 and W10, being legally represented, have reasonable prospects for trial and should not be delayed by others. The Court exercises discretion to deconsolidate proceedings to allow applicants to focus on their individual cases and advance their matters expeditiously.

Parties
Applicant: Herman Kurniadi; Applicant: Iwan Salim; Applicant: Charles Liaw; Applicant: Herlina Salim; Applicant: Mariati T Hardi; Applicant: Soedarjanto; Applicant: Sylvia Poerwita; Applicant: Pantirata Dibasa Panggabean; Applicant: Johnson Tobing; Applicant: Suriani Tahir; Applicant: Lela Laksana; Applicant: Oemar Kresno Oetomo; Applicant: Liong Tek Lung; Applicant: Dewi Anggraeni Anggawirja; Applicant: Retno Wachjoewidajat; First Respondent: Simon Thuang Chye Loh; Second Respondent: Robert Ashman; Third Respondent: Stephen William Marshall; Fourth Respondent: Neil Henry Pollard; Fifth Respondent: Ostrich Meat & Marketing Company (Australia) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion / Interlocutory (decision on Motion to Deconsolidate Proceedings)
Outcome
deconsolidation granted
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Proceedings, Deconsolidation, Case Management, Security for Costs
Practice and Procedure Trade Practices Corporations Law Consolidation of Proceedings Deconsolidation Case Management Security for Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herman Kurniadi

Applicant

Iwan Salim

Applicant

Charles Liaw

Applicant

Herlina Salim

Applicant

Mariati T Hardi

Applicant

Soedarjanto

Applicant

Sylvia Poerwita

Applicant

Pantirata Dibasa Panggabean

Applicant

Johnson Tobing

Applicant

Suriani Tahir

Applicant

Lela Laksana

Applicant

Oemar Kresno Oetomo

Applicant

Liong Tek Lung

Applicant

Dewi Anggraeni Anggawirja

Applicant

Retno Wachjoewidajat

Applicant

Simon Thuang Chye Loh

First Respondent

Robert Ashman

Second Respondent

Stephen William Marshall

Third Respondent

Neil Henry Pollard

Fourth Respondent

Ostrich Meat & Marketing Company (Australia) Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Interlocutory (decision on Motion to Deconsolidate Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the consolidated proceedings comprising matters WAD8–WAD20 of 2004 be deconsolidated?
  2. 2 Have circumstances changed such that consolidation now impedes the efficient resolution of the applicants’ claims?

Ratio Decidendi

Consolidation has not led to efficient progress; applicants in W9 and W10, being legally represented, have reasonable prospects for trial and should not be delayed by others. The Court exercises discretion to deconsolidate proceedings to allow applicants to focus on their individual cases and advance their matters expeditiously.

Court Disposition

deconsolidation granted

Orders

  • The proceedings in W8–W20 of 2004 are deconsolidated and each application is to be treated as a separate proceeding.
  • Parties are at liberty to apply for further directions.