Michael, S. & Anor v. Monitronix Ltd & Ors [1994] FCA 979

Michael, S. & Anor v. Monitronix Ltd & Ors [1994] FCA 979

The motion to lift the stay was dismissed because the applicants failed to comply with procedural orders requiring detailed affidavits and proposed pleadings, and did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to vary the original order. The Court was not satisfied that efforts had been made to bring the matters within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or that a trial could not be achieved there.

Parties
Applicant: Shawky Michael; Applicant: Joyce Mary Michael; First Respondent: Monitronix Limited; Second Respondent: Bernard William Ridgeway; Second Respondent: David Christopher Nicolson; Second Respondent: Graham Charles Sylvester
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 1994
Procedural Posture
Motion / Application to Remove Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Civil Procedure Trade Practices Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shawky Michael

Applicant

Joyce Mary Michael

Applicant

Monitronix Limited

First Respondent

Bernard William Ridgeway

Second Respondent

David Christopher Nicolson

Second Respondent

Graham Charles Sylvester

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Application to Remove Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of proceedings ordered on 23 November 1989 should be lifted
  2. 2 Whether sufficient grounds have been demonstrated for the variation of the stay order
  3. 3 Whether applicants complied with procedural orders to support lifting the stay

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to lift the stay was dismissed because the applicants failed to comply with procedural orders requiring detailed affidavits and proposed pleadings, and did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to vary the original order. The Court was not satisfied that efforts had been made to bring the matters within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or that a trial could not be achieved there.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicants' motion filed on 15 November 1994 is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the second respondents' costs (if any) to be taxed.