Alexanderson v Adamson - [2021] QDC 108

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Alexanderson v Adamson [2021] QDC 108

PARTIES:

MAREE ALEXANDERSON

(plaintiff/ respondent)

v

MICHAEL JOHN ADAMSON

(defendant/ applicant)

FILE NO:

54/2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport District Court

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2021 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 May 2021 with further written submissions of the applicant made by 10 May 2021 and of the respondent made by 17 May 2021

JUDGE:

Muir DCJ

ORDER:

The application for a stay of the proceedings is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – where proceedings are on foot in both the District Court of Queensland and the Federal Circuit Court for recovery of monies that are alleged to be a debt – where a stay of the District Court proceedings is sought on forum non conveniens grounds – basis of the power to grant a stay – whether the stay sought is to be characterised as permanent or temporary – what test should be applied in determining whether to grant a stay – if the stay is permanent, whether or not the District Court of Queensland is a “clearly inappropriate forum” in this case – if the stay is temporary, whether the relevant factors weigh for or against granting a stay

LEGISLATION:

District Court Act 1967 (Qld) s 69(2)(c)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 16(g), 144

CASES:

Chang v Yung [2021] QDC 68

Henry v Henry [1996] 185 CLR 571

McMahon v Gould [1982] 7 ACLR 202

Oceanic Sunline Special Shipping Inc v Fay [1988] 165 CLR 197

Puttick v Tenon Limited [2008] 238 CLR 265

Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhan [2002] 210 CLR 491

Sterling Pharmaceuticals v Boots Pty Ltd [1992] 34 FCR 287

Voth v Manildra Flower Mills [1990] 171 CLR 538

White v Australian Securities Investments Commission [2013] QCA 357

COUNSEL:
C Coulsen for the plaintiff/ respondent

J Linklater-Steele for the defendant/ applicant

SOLICITORS:
Twomey Dispute Lawyers for the plaintiff/ respondent

Frigo Adamson for the defendant/ applicant

By an application filed 1 April 2021 and returnable on 6 May 2021 the defendant/applicant, Michael John Adamson, applied to this Court for an order that proceedings commenced against him by the plaintiff/respondent, Marie Alexanderson, in the Southport District Court on 18 February 2021 be stayed pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) r 16(g) or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court (the application).
Due to unforeseen circumstances unrelated to the parties it was necessary for the matter to be heard in Brisbane. The application was argued before me on the morning of 6 May 2021, and my intention was to deliver an ex tempore judgment that afternoon. But, after considering the divergence in the opposing submissions, I requested that further submissions be exchanged and filed by the parties. These submissions were to address the relevant power, the test and criteria as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alexanderson v Adamson

Details

AGLC: Alexanderson v Adamson [2021] QDC 108
Case: [2021] QDC 108
Decision Date: 24 May 2021 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alexanderson v Adamson involved an application for a stay of proceedings. The applicant, Alexanderson, sought to stay the proceedings that were on foot in the District Court of Queensland. The proceedings were for the recovery of monies that were alleged to be a debt. At the same time, proceedings were also being conducted in the Federal Circuit Court. The basis of the applicant's power to grant a stay was under section 33 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The applicant argued that the stay sought should be characterised as permanent and that the District Court of Queensland was a "clearly inappropriate forum" for the proceedings.

The court had to determine whether the stay sought should be permanent or temporary, and if it was permanent, whether the District Court of Queensland was a clearly inappropriate forum. If the stay was temporary, the court had to weigh the relevant factors to determine whether to grant a stay. The court considered the relevant factors, including the convenience of the parties, the location of the witnesses, and the location of the documents. The court held that the District Court of Queensland was not a clearly inappropriate forum, and that the stay sought should be characterised as temporary. The court also held that the relevant factors did not weigh in favour of granting a stay.

The court dismissed the application for a stay of the proceedings. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the District Court of Queensland was a clearly inappropriate forum, and that the relevant factors did not weigh in favour of granting a stay. The court noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support the claim that the District Court of Queensland was a clearly inappropriate forum. The court also held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the stay sought should be characterised as permanent. The court noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support the claim that the stay sought should be characterised as permanent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for a stay of the proceedings is dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Alexanderson v Adamson [2021] QDC 108
PARTIES:	MAREE ALEXANDERSON (plaintiff/ respondent) v MICHAEL JOHN ADAMSON (defendant/ applicant)
FILE NO:	54/2021
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Southport District Court
DELIVERED ON:	24 May 2021 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 May 2021 with further written submissions of the applicant made by 10 May 2021 and of the respondent made by 17 May 2021
JUDGE:	Muir DCJ
ORDER:	The application for a stay of the proceedings is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – where proceedings are on foot in both the District Court of Queensland and the Federal Circuit Court for recovery of monies that are alleged to be a debt – where a stay of the District Court proceedings is sought on forum non conveniens grounds – basis of the power to grant a stay – whether the stay sought is to be characterised as permanent or temporary – what test should be applied in determining whether to grant a stay – if the stay is permanent, whether or not the District Court of Queensland is a “clearly inappropriate forum” in this case – if the stay is temporary, whether the relevant factors weigh for or against granting a stay
LEGISLATION:	District Court Act 1967 (Qld) s 69(2)(c) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 16(g), 144
CASES:	Chang v Yung [2021] QDC 68 Henry v Henry [1996] 185 CLR 571 McMahon v Gould [1982] 7 ACLR 202 Oceanic Sunline Special Shipping Inc v Fay [1988] 165 CLR 197 Puttick v Tenon Limited [2008] 238 CLR 265 Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhan [2002] 210 CLR 491 Sterling Pharmaceuticals v Boots Pty Ltd [1992] 34 FCR 287 Voth v Manildra Flower Mills [1990] 171 CLR 538 White v Australian Securities Investments Commission [2013] QCA 357
COUNSEL:	C Coulsen for the plaintiff/ respondent J Linklater-Steele for the defendant/ applicant
SOLICITORS:	Twomey Dispute Lawyers for the plaintiff/ respondent Frigo Adamson for the defendant/ applicant