(Oral)

Gopal Sri Ram JCA delivering judgment of the court:

This is the judgment of the court.

On 16 August 1988 the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents to this appeal obtained an injunction from the High Court against the appellant as well as the receivers and managers of a company known as Cocoa Processors Sdn. Bhd. restraining them from selling or dealing with or parting with any or all of the assets of Cocoa Processors Sdn. Bhd. until the final determination of the principal suit.

There was a further injunction which restrained the defendants in the action from issuing any prospectus or releasing any information pertaining to the trade and production methods relating to Cocoa Processors Sdn. Bhd. or allowing any such inspection of its assets to any party or person without express order of the court.

On 23 February 1989 that injunction was dissolved. An order was also made on the assessment of damages for any loss that might have been occasioned in consequence of the injunction. Pursuant to that order, an inquiry as to damages was conducted by the registrar. Oral evidence was heard in the sense that the deponents of the affidavits were cross-examined. After a long hearing, the registrar came to the conclusion that no injury had been occasioned to the appellant and declined to award any damages. In particular, the registrar expressed her dissatisfaction as to the quality of evidence led by the appellant. She found some of the evidence proffered by the appellant to be suspect.

The appellant being dissatisfied, appealed to the judge who, at the conclusion of the arguments, affirmed the registrar's decision and dismissed the appeal before him. In his written judgment, he expressed agreement with the registrar and affirmed her findings. The appellant now appeals to us.

In the circumstances adumbrated, the appellant begins in this court with a serious disadvantage. This is, in essence, an appeal against what are concurrent findings of fact. We have on previous occasions made the position of this court amply clear in respect of an appeal such as this save in exceptional cases, this court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact. The registrar had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses and once the judge reviewing her decision affirmed her findings, it is not open for this court to reopen those findings.

We may add that this is not a case where the judge was merely rehearing a summons by the registrar. In the present case, the proceedings before the registrar were in the nature of a trial in which viva voceevidence was led. The present case therefore falls outside cases such as those tried on a summons for judgment under O. 14.That is the result of O. 56 r. 1(3A). See also, DoCarmo v. Ford Excavation[1981] 1 NSWLR 409.

For these reasons the appeal is without merit. It is dismissed. The orders of the registrar and judge are affirmed. The respondents No. 1 and respondents No. 2 4 will have their costs on separate bills with separate items of getting up, profit costs and out of pockets.