Case: Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 525 ; (2002) 55 NSWLR 64
Outcome: discussed
The plaintiff relies on the test stated by Austin J in Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 525 ; (2002) 55 NSWLR 64 (" Dean-Willcocks") , in particular, at [34]. Mr Taylor and Mr Johnson accept that this is the correct approach although they say that the case is distinguishable from the present proceedings. 10 Austin J said at [34] in Dean-Willcocks that the court's task is to identify and weigh the advantages and disadvantages to the plaintiff and the defendants as a whole, and in terms of the efficient use of the court's resources, having regard to the commonality of issues raised by each claim and the court's ability to case manage the proceedings so as to minimise disadvantages. 11 His Honour said at [35] that there are some special features of unfair preference proceedings which may justify the grant of leave even though leave would not be granted in similarly constituted proceedings which have a different subject matter. It is unnecessary to repeat the three considerations to which his Honour referred at [35]. 14 The submissions of Mr Taylor and Mr Johnson are that there ought to be 31 separate proceedings rather than one consolidated action. They submit that many of the factors which were present in Dean-Willcocks are not applicable to the present proceeding. The principle matters to which they point are fourfold. 15 Firstly, they say that separate proceedings have already been commenced in this court and that those proceedings can be case managed, so it is submitted, just as efficiently as one consolidated action. 16 Secondly, they submit that the question of insolvency can be determined in the separate proceedings in a way which will bind all of the defendants. 25 In Dean-Willcocks, Austin J pointed out that one of the factors which justify the joinder of a number of defendants is the fact that the case management of the proceedings is allocated in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Corporations List. That is a regular weekly list within which issues of this type are dealt with and their progress is monitored and dealt with expeditiously. 26 There is a separate Corporations List in the Federal Court. A Corporations Duty Judge sits on Fridays at 9.30am to hear matters referred from a registrar. Urgent applications may be made directly, on any day of the week, to the rostered Corporations Duty Judge. At present the Corporations Duty Judges are by rotation, Justices Emmett, Gyles, and Lindgren, although other members of the Court's Corporations Panel fill that role if one or other of those judges is not available. Details of the Court's administrative arrangements for dealing with Corporations matters are contained in a notice to practitioners issued by the NSW District Registrar on 6 February 2006. 27 I will myself case manage the present proceedings but in the event that something may arise at a time when I am not available, the matter could be dealt with by the Corporations Duty Judge who is sitting at that time to deal with urgent applications. The matter can therefore be dealt with and managed in much the same way as matters are managed in the corporations list of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.