REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application for summary judgment against the first and second defendants. The Official Trustee in bankruptcy, in whom is vested the property of the first defendant, who had become a bankrupt on his own petition on 25 August 1999, appeared on the application, and while not consenting to the orders sought, did not oppose the making of those orders. The first defendant consented to the orders. However, since those orders affected the interests of the Official Trustee and of the second defendant, the plaintiffs' application was heard on its merits, and was not disposed of consensually.
2 After the hearing of the application it came to my attention that the eighth defendant in these proceedings has instituted proceedings in this division (the eighth defendant's proceedings) seeking similar relief against the first and second defendants to that sought by the plaintiffs in this application. To ensure that the orders made in this application are wedded to and consistent with the granting of any relief in the eighth defendant's proceedings, both matters were listed before me on 4 and 10 February 2000. The avoidance of inconsistent orders and unnecessary duplication of proceedings has been achieved by agreement amongst the parties in the form of short minutes of order. In the case of the eighth defendant's proceedings, orders were made by consent on 10 February 2000 in accordance with those short minutes. In the case of this application, although it has been heard on its merits, in order to facilitate the early termination of the receivership of property, the subject of both proceedings, I made orders on 10 February 2000 in accordance with those short minutes, schedule 2 to these reasons, and on the basis of the reasons which follow.
3 The first defendant appeared by his solicitor in the proceedings but did not give evidence. The second defendant did not appear; substituted service of the proceedings having been effected pursuant to order of the Court of 9 December 1999.
4 I have been assisted in these proceedings by extensive written submissions of counsel for the plaintiffs' (the submissions), schedule 1 to these reasons, which I have attached for ease of reference to the substantial body of evidence tendered on this application, and as they contain the primary findings of fact which, in my view, should be made in these proceedings, based upon the evidence particularised in those submissions and which I have accepted. But for the particularity of those submissions and my agreement with the proffered appropriate findings of primary facts, a briefer expression of reasons for granting of summary judgment may have sufficed.
5 The nature of the proceedings brought against the first and second defendants is set out in the submissions which, for convenience, is quoted below.
"2. By their Third Further Amended Statement of Claim ("the Claim"), the Plaintiffs contend that the First Defendant made a series of misrepresentations during the period from about June 1998 to November 1998. These misrepresentations, which will be considered in detail below, are specified in paragraphs 4 and 27Z of the Claim. The Plaintiffs allege that the First Defendant was the only director of the Second Defendant (paragraph 3 of the Claim) and that the First Defendant acted as "the principal and controller of, and an agent for, the Second Defendant": see paragraph 12 of the Claim. The Plaintiffs allege that these misrepresentations were made "as part of a sequence of fraudulent conduct calculated to make financial gain" inter alia, for the First and Second Defendants: see paragraph 21 of the Claim. The Plaintiffs allege that the conduct of the First and Second Defendants constitutes, inter alia, the tort of deceit (see paragraphs 18 and 27BB of the Claim) and a series of contraventions of the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act ( see paragraphs 8-14 and 27AF-27AG of the Claim).