//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2009] NSWDC 408
District Court of NSW
2009-10-08
Hayne JJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
For the reasons which I have just given the application is refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Suttram Pty Limited
Michelin Australia Pty Limited
CITATION: Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 408
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 83 ALJR 951 ASIC v Rich [2006] NSWSC 826 CASES CITED: DJL v The Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226 Kettemen v Hansel Properties Limited [1987] AC 189 Urban Trans Port Authority (NSW) v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471
Their Honours said in the following paragraph that the "achievement of a just but timely and cost effective resolution of a dispute has an effect upon the court and upon other litigants." At 975 ([100]) their Honours after referring to the views expressed in the speech of Lord Griffiths in the Ketteman v Hansel Properties Limited [1987] AC 189 at 220 that "justice cannot always be measured in money and that a judge is entitled to weigh in the balance the strain the litigation imposes upon litigants, are also know generally accepted." At 977 ([113]) their Honours said as follows- " In the past it has been left largely to the parties to prepare for trial and to seek the court's assistance as required. Those times are long gone. The allocation of power, between litigants and the courts arises from tradition and from principle and policy. It is recognised by the courts that the resolution of disputes serves the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings." 21. It is clear that whether or not I grant this application for leave to depart from UCPR 29.6 is a matter for the exercise of my discretion. I have been considerably assisted by counsel, both for Michelin and for the successor to Suttram, Mr Parker SC and Mr Vincent on the one hand and Mr Sharpe on the other hand, in their written and oral submission. I have determined to reject the application and the matters which I take into account in rejecting the application are as follows.
(2009) 83 ALJR 951
(2000) 201 CLR 226
(1992) 28 NSWLR 471