Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd v Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd (No 13) [2011] FCA 1209 (11 October 2011)

Last Updated: 25 October 2011

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd v Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd (No 13) [2011] FCA 1209

Citation:		Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd v Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd (No 13) [2011] FCA 1209
Parties:		SUNLAND WATERFRONT (BVI) LTD and SUNLAND GROUP PTY LTD ACN 063 429 532 v PRUDENTIA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 091 390 742, HANLEY INVESTMENTS PTE LTD, ANGUS JOHN LUXMOORE REED and MATTHEW JAMES JOYCE
File number:		QUD 195 of 2009
Judge:		LOGAN J
Date of judgment:		11 October 2011
Catchwords:		PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for expedited hearing of a trial
Date of hearing:	11 October 2011
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	6
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr P O'Shea SC with Mr S Monks
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Thomsons Lawyers
Counsel for the First, Second and Third Respondents:	Mr H Carmichael
Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Respondents:	Freehills
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent:	Mr P Riordan SC
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent:	Norton Rose

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 195 of 2009

BETWEEN:	SUNLAND WATERFRONT (BVI) LTD First Applicant SUNLAND GROUP PTY LTD ACN 063 429 532 Second Applicant
AND:	PRUDENTIA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 091 390 742 First Respondent HANLEY INVESTMENTS PTE LTD Second Respondent ANGUS JOHN LUXMOORE REED Third Respondent MATTHEW JAMES JOYCE Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 OCTOBER 2011
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. In the event that the parties do not receive a communication from the Registrar by close of business on Friday 14 October 2011 with respect to an earlier listing, the parties should act on the basis that the existing listing dates in March 2012 will be the trial dates in this matter.
2. Costs be reserved.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. It is desirable that, if possible, the trial of this proceeding be conducted over a period of three weeks during the period commencing on 14 November 2011 and concluding not later than 9 December 2011.
2. Given the inability of the docket judge to conduct a trial of that length during that period, a request will be made of the Chief Justice to ascertain whether any other judge is available to conduct the trial during that period.
   

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 195 of 2009

BETWEEN:	SUNLAND WATERFRONT (BVI) LTD First Applicant SUNLAND GROUP PTY LTD ACN 063 429 532 Second Applicant
AND:	PRUDENTIA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 091 390 742 First Respondent HANLEY INVESTMENTS PTE LTD Second Respondent ANGUS JOHN LUXMOORE REED Third Respondent MATTHEW JAMES JOYCE Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE:	11 OCTOBER 2011
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. It is common ground, and I include myself in this, that it is desirable that this case be heard as soon as possible. It is evident from Mr Qadora’s letter of 29 September 2011 that there is a scenario whereby Mr Joyce might be in jeopardy of imprisonment, if matters are decided adversely to him, as early as early December 2011. That would mean that to accommodate that scenario a trial of this case should occur in November 2011. In the ordinary course of this Court’s exercise of its original and appellate jurisdiction, November is a month reserved in terms of priority for the exercise of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
2. Judges can and do, once appellate jurisdiction commitments have been fixed, allocate work around those commitments in the original jurisdiction. As I have said on earlier occasions, there was a need in this case to balance the interests not just of Mr Joyce or even just of the other parties to the case, but also the claims of other litigants for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. My own appellate jurisdiction commitments are such that it is not possible for me to entertain a trial of this matter in November. Were it possible, I would on the basis of Mr Qadora’s latest letter set the case down for trial in that month. That is so, even though I well accept that it may necessitate, perhaps even would necessitate if so listed, a change of counsel for the Sunland parties.
3. I well accept that there is a lead time, which ought not lightly to be disregarded, in relation to the preparation that is entailed where a change of counsel occurs in respect of a case such as this. It was put to me on behalf of the Sunland parties that such a lead time as a rough rule of thumb is equivalent to the likely length of a trial. At least in this case, knowing what I do about the issues in it and the likely evidence from all of the parties, I readily accept that the Sunland parties would need some three weeks for another senior counsel, and perhaps also junior counsel, to read into the case. Taking that into account, it seems to me that if there is to be any trial of the proceeding in November that the very latest that any such trial would need to be fixed would be the end of this week.
4. Another scenario which emerges on the evidence is that it may be some time in February, perhaps early February, when, alternatively, a verdict might be given in the Dubai criminal proceeding. Experience, though, such as it is, of the course of events in the criminal courts there, as revealed by the succession of evidence that I had had about events there, leads me to be a little doubtful about that February 2012 scenario. I do not doubt the genuineness of Mr Qadora’s estimate. It is just that on each occasion when I have seen evidence of an anticipated event in Dubai there has been a degree of elasticity, in hindsight, about the reliability of the estimate. That is not uncommon in relation to court events.
5. For all that, there is, as I have said, a worse case scenario and that is the one that does, in my view, at least warrant an endeavour being made, however unlikely its result may be given the existing appellate jurisdiction commitments, to see whether it is possible to have this case tried in November. I propose, therefore, to make a request of the Chief Justice. I add this, though; in the event that the parties do not receive a communication from the Court by close of business on Friday, the parties should act on the basis that the existing listing in March 2012 will remain.
   
6. I reserve the costs of today.
   

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Logan.

Associate:

Dated: 24 October 2011