Case: Henderson v Pioneer Homes Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 55 ; (1979) 142 CLR 294
Outcome: followed
these reasons, I am satisfied that I should order a hearing under O 29 r 2 that the separate questions be heard before the rest of the proceedings. In my opinion, the questions of construction and (if possible) power should be decided by a Full Court exercising the original jurisdiction so that, the balance of the proceedings can be tried more efficiently and expeditiously. I propose to reserve the separate questions for hearing by a Full Court pursuant to s 25(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The power of a single judge sitting in the Court's original jurisdiction to reserve a question for consideration by a Full Court can only be exercised in a matter where an appeal would lie to a Full Court: s 25(6). An appeal, by leave, from an order answering the separate questions, would lie to a Full Court under s 24(1) and (1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act . Therefore, under s 25(6) of the Act, a single judge has power to reserve for consideration and determination by a Full Court, those questions and the question of whether any amendment or addition to those questions is necessary and, if so ought be made, so as to enable the Full Court to determine the proper construction of cll 7, 9 and 11 of the deed and their validity: Henderson v Pioneer Homes Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 55 ; (1979) 142 CLR 294 at 298-299 per Stephen, Mason and Wilson JJ. There is an important public interest in the prompt determination of these proceedings so that the administrators and the creditors know their positions, particularly if the deed is invalid or the impugned provisions are found to be void or are varied. In addition, the administration of Lehman companies in other jurisdictions and the positions of insurers may be affected by the final decision of this Court. Answers to these questions will provide a suitable means of moving more promptly and efficiently to the final resolution of this complex matter. The parties should prepare an agreed bundle of documents constituting the factual matrix together with the deed and prepare a timetable for submissions. I will direct the parties to bring in short minutes to give effect to these reasons. I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares. Associate: Dated: 23 July 2009 Counsel for the First, Second and Third Plaintiffs: N C Hutley SC, A Coleman and D Sulan Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Plaintiffs: Piper Alderman Counsel for the First, Second and Third Defendants: B A Coles QC and P Kulveski Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Defendants: Clayton Utz Counsel for the Fourth Defendant: D Williams SC and J Castaldi Solicitor for the Fourth Defendant: Dibbs Barker Counsel for the Fifth Defendant: T F Bathurst QC and E Hyde Solicitor for the Fifth Defendant: Jones Day Counsel for the Amicus Curiae D Barnett Solicitor for the Amicus Curiae Australian Securities and Investments Commission Date of Hearing: 3, 10 and 21 July 2009 Date of Judgment: 23 July 2009 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2009/784.html