Hart-Roach v Denniss [2011] FCA 26 (24 January 2011)

Last Updated: 25 January 2011

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hart-Roach v Denniss [2011] FCA 26

Citation:		Hart-Roach v Denniss [2011] FCA 26
Parties:		RUTH MARY HART-ROACH v BRUCE GORDON THOBURN DENNISS, JOHN R MALLOCH REAL ESTATE/AVON-SMITH PTY LTD, AVON-SMITH FAMILY TRUST, CRAIG MCINTOSH AND MARGARET BLAKER
File number:		WAD 411 of 2010
Judge:		MCKERRACHER J
Date of judgment:		24 January 2011
Date of hearing:	24 December 2010
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	7
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:	The Respondents did not appear

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 411 of 2010

BETWEEN:	RUTH MARY HART-ROACH Applicant
AND:	BRUCE GORDON THOBURN DENNISS JOHN R MALLOCH REAL ESTATE/ AVON-SMITH PTY LTD AVON-SMITH FAMILY TRUST CRAIG MCINTOSH MARGARET BLAKER Respondents

JUDGE:	MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 DECEMBER 2010
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The ex parte application for injunctive relief be dismissed.
   

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 411 of 2010

BETWEEN:	RUTH MARY HART-ROACH Applicant
AND:	BRUCE GORDON THOBURN DENNISS JOHN R MALLOCH REAL ESTATE/ AVON-SMITH PTY LTD AVON-SMITH FAMILY TRUST CRAIG MCINTOSH MARGARET BLAKER Respondents

JUDGE:	MCKERRACHER J
DATE:	24 JANUARY 2011
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The applicant appeared before me on Christmas Eve moving for an urgent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with or disposing of the goods formerly held in a unit occupied by her in Nedlands, Western Australia. The relief sought was said to be based under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and particularly to the unconscionable conduct provisions of that Act.
2. Prior to this there have been several sets of proceedings in other State courts.
3. After hearing the applicant’s outline of the nature of her complaint and her case, I informed her that I had originally thought the Court may lack jurisdiction as the complaints appeared, in reality to be based on State legislation. On further consideration however, it seemed there may be a possibility of jurisdiction under the unconscionable conduct provisions. That is to say, of course, nothing whatsoever about the merits of the matter but to say at least that the matter may be capable of being heard in this Court.
4. It was by no means clear to me that injunctive relief would be appropriate but I indicated to the applicant that I would adjourn to see whether it was possible for contact to be made with the relevant agents for lease of the unit to ascertain whether they would give an assurance that no steps would be taken for a short period of time which in turn would enable the opportunity for the respondents to present their side of the story. The applicant approved of this course.
5. A Deputy District Registrar of this Court contacted Mr John R Malloch on behalf of the respondents. The Deputy District Registrar was informed that in fact the respondents had already given an extension of time under the relevant State legislation to the applicant to recover her property and indeed that extension of time ran for a period of 60 days from the date of the notice, which was the 17 December 2010. The notice had been posted to the address that had been previously used by the applicant but was apparently not received.
6. Subsequently, the form described by Mr Malloch was faxed to the Registry of the Court and a copy was produced to the applicant.

CONCLUSION

7. In those circumstances, as the opportunity afforded by the respondents is greater than the opportunity the applicant had been seeking in any event, it was unnecessary to require any further undertaking or to make any injunctive orders and accordingly the ex parte application for injunctive relief was dismissed.
   

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice McKerracher.

Associate:

Dated: 24 January 2011