Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2013] FCA 296

Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2013] FCA 296

Applications to set aside the orders of Gray J and Marshall J and to reinstate the appeal were refused, as no new evidence or procedural unfairness justified disturbance of the orders. The applicant's solicitor failed to comply with duties under s 37N, warranting an order that he pay respondents' costs on a party-party basis.

Parties
Applicant: Mijac Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 089 820 280); First Respondent: William Graham; Second Respondent: Cosmick Pty Ltd (ACN 065 356 149); Third Respondent: Melbourne Gravity Pty Ltd (ACN 490 584 339); Other: Registrar Josan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Final Determination of Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Costs Orders Against Practitioners, Compliance With Procedural Rules
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Orders Costs Orders Against Practitioners Compliance With Procedural Rules

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mijac Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 089 820 280)

Applicant

William Graham

First Respondent

Cosmick Pty Ltd (ACN 065 356 149)

Second Respondent

Melbourne Gravity Pty Ltd (ACN 490 584 339)

Third Respondent

Registrar Josan

Other

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Final Determination of Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders should be set aside for alleged non-entry
  2. 2 Whether orders should be set aside as interlocutory
  3. 3 Whether new evidence justifies setting aside previous orders

Ratio Decidendi

Applications to set aside the orders of Gray J and Marshall J and to reinstate the appeal were refused, as no new evidence or procedural unfairness justified disturbance of the orders. The applicant's solicitor failed to comply with duties under s 37N, warranting an order that he pay respondents' costs on a party-party basis.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • The applicant pay Registrar Josan's costs of and incidental to its application for leave to issue a subpoena.
  • The applications made in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the applicant's interlocutory application dated 22 January 2013 each be refused.