Heperu Pty Ltd & Ors v Perpetual Trustees Australia Ltd [2009] HCATrans 341 (21 December 2009)

Last Updated: 14 January 2010

[2009] HCATrans 341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S105 of 2009

B e t w e e n -

HEPERU PTY LIMITED

(ACN 001 517 719)

First Applicant

KIRISI HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED

(ACN 003 010 106)

Second Applicant

BARRY SAMUEL LANDA

Third Applicant

DRUMMOYNE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PTY LTD

Fourth Applicant

and

PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 000 431 827)

Respondent

Directions Hearing

HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 21 DECEMBER 2009, AT 9.37 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

MR A.J. HOURIGAN: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicants in that matter. (instructed by Wilsons Solicitors Attorneys & Conveyancers)

MR R.E. DUBLER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with MR J.E. EMMETT for the respondent. (instructed by TressCox Lawyers)

HIS HONOUR: I was minded to list the application for special leave for hearing on 12 February next year in Sydney. I gather, Mr Hourigan, the applicants want to file an amended application for special leave to appeal?

MR HOURIGAN: We do, your Honour, to raise the further matters that have been subject to the notice of motion in the New South Wales Supreme Court.

HIS HONOUR: You can do that. They do not look too promising to me, but you can certainly do it. Do you want also leave to file some further submissions in that regard?

MR HOURIGAN: Just incorporating those matters, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Very well. Mr Dubler, would you like leave to file submissions in answer to whatever submissions come forth from the applicants?

MR DUBLER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Very well. Anything else?

MR DUBLER: Just if I could foreshadow one thing, it may not be necessary, but the affidavit that has been filed and served appears to foreshadow a desire to put forward fresh evidence. We see that as inconsistent with principles here in the High Court pursuant to Mickelberg and the like. So any acquiescence to an application for leave to amend should not be taken as suggesting that, if it is to introduce fresh evidence, it is appropriate.

HIS HONOUR: Your consent to the application for leave to amend is not a consent to any actual amendment that might be sought, if I can put it that way?

MR DUBLER: Yes, certainly.

HIS HONOUR: I make the following directions:

1. I direct that the applicants file an amended application for special leave to appeal on or before 2 February 2010 together with any submissions thought to be necessitated by the amendment.
   
2. I direct that the respondents file any submissions in answer on or before 5 February 2010.
   
3. I list the application for special leave for hearing on 12 February 2010 in Sydney.
   

Are those dates satisfactory?

MR HOURIGAN: Please the Court, Your Honour.

MR DUBLER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you very much.

AT 9.39 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED