| COURT REPORT #1 Federal
Magistrates Court Brisbane - published 01 May 2009 |
| At the Directions Hearing on 30 April 2009, Mr. Harvey Rough
who claims
to have a law degree (but apparently is not a lawyer) turned
up from Perth WA as an employee of Ready Flowers Pty Ltd
under the impression that he could represent Ready Flowers when
MIDDLETONS
LAWYERS are on the Court Record. The Federal Magistrate informed
Mr. Rough that either he or MIDDLETONS
should have been well aware that, the Court Rules require Ready
Flowers to have a lawyer to represent it and only a practicing lawyer
who is registered in the Court to practice can represent the first
respondent. The Federal Magistrate inquired as to where the MIDDLETONS
lawyer was, and Mr Rough stated that as of 2 days ago MIDDLETONS
does not represent his employer any more in this proceedings
and it later came to light that Ready Flowers cannot afford a
lawyer when Mr. Rough stated so. Despite this debacle, the Federal
Magistrate granted leave for Mr. Rough to appear for Ready Flowers
on the day notifying Mr. Rough that the leave is a once only concession
and will not be repeated in the future. |
| The Federal Magistrate inquired as to when Ready Flowers was to
file a defence and Mr. Rough stated that a defence would be filed
when the applicant had finalised amendments to the statement of
claim. Despite Ready Flowers being in default of filing its response
and defence, because the applicant had filed minor amendments during
the default time the Federal Magistrate appeared to conclude that
the failure of Ready Flowers to file a response and defence was
somehow the applicant's fault. |
| It will be interesting to see how Ready Flowers is going to eventually
produce a defence document, if it cannot afford a lawyer. |
| Mr. Rough complained bitterly to the Federal Magistrate that the
applicant's website (this website) was causing Ready Flowers considerable
lost revenue which was in the region of a 50% drop in market share
from something marginally over 10% to something marginally over
5% and Mr. Rough sought legal advice from the Federal Magistrate
as to if anything could be done. Despite the matter being irrelevant
to the proceedings, the Federal Magistrate gave advice which essentially
said that if Ready Flowers has a genuine claim it should sue the
applicant. |
| The hearing of the applicants interlocutory application for substituted
service on the second respondent (Mr. Owen) did not proceed due
to the Federal Magistrate pointing out to the applicant that despite
MIDDLETONS
letter of withdrawal to the Registry, because MIDDLETONS
had not removed itself from the Court Record according to the Rules
of the Court, that MIDDLETONS
still represented the second respondent and that the applicant should
serve the Originating Process on MIDDLETONS
for the second respondent. That service has now been made on MIDDLETONS. |
| The applicant notified the Court that due to the recent information
that Ready Flowers
Limited (registered Hong Kong) has been trading via its website
ReadyFlowers.com.au
in Australia at the first respondents place of business in TECHNOLOGY
PARK at BENTLEY WA (albeit without an ABN number or a
Foreign Company Representative registered with ASIC as required
by Corporations law or paying GST), the applicant wished to join
Ready Flowers
Limited and its directors who are Peter Ross Hegarty and Thomas
Ross Hegarty otherwise any orders that may be made against the first
respondent Ready Flowers Pty Ltd would likely be useless. The applicant
has until 14 May to file his interlocutory application for leave
to join other parties and file an amended statement of claim to
suit. That application is to be heard on 29 May 2009. The applicant
is yet to decide if Deborah Hegarty director
of the first respondent should also be joined. |
|
|