The Bell Group Ltd & Ors v Facom Australia Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 74

The Bell Group Ltd & Ors v Facom Australia Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 74

Given the advanced stage of proceedings and near readiness for trial, and the lateness of the application, to grant leave to file a cross-claim would be unjust due to likely fresh interlocutory steps and material delay, thus inconvenience to applicant outweighs benefits to respondent.

Parties
Applicant: The Bell Group Limited; Applicant: Bell Brothers Pty Ltd; Applicant: Bell Basic Industries Ltd; Applicant: Bell Tyres Pty Ltd; Applicant: Bell Freightlines Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Facom Australia Ltd; Second Respondent: Policy Nominees Pty Ltd trading as Access Computer Consultants; Third Respondent: Anthony Errington; Third Respondent: Martin A. Thomas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Applications, Cross Claims, Delay, Expedition of Proceedings, Trade Practices Act Contraventions
Practice and Procedure Trade Practices Interlocutory Applications Cross Claims Delay Expedition of Proceedings Trade Practices Act Contraventions

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Bell Group Limited

Applicant

Bell Brothers Pty Ltd

Applicant

Bell Basic Industries Ltd

Applicant

Bell Tyres Pty Ltd

Applicant

Bell Freightlines Pty Ltd

Applicant

Facom Australia Ltd

First Respondent

Policy Nominees Pty Ltd trading as Access Computer Consultants

Second Respondent

Anthony Errington

Third Respondent

Martin A. Thomas

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to second and third respondents to file cross-claims for contribution or indemnity against first respondent and another party after trial entry
  2. 2 Whether to set aside entry for trial due to the cross-claim application
  3. 3 Balancing the inconvenience to applicants versus respondents if leave is granted at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

Given the advanced stage of proceedings and near readiness for trial, and the lateness of the application, to grant leave to file a cross-claim would be unjust due to likely fresh interlocutory steps and material delay, thus inconvenience to applicant outweighs benefits to respondent.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • Applicants to produce documents for second and third respondents' inspection by 4 pm on 13 February 1987.
  • Applicants to serve second and third respondents with specified interrogatories and referenced documents by 4 pm on 13 February 1987.