Legal Research
Cases
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Allam

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Allam

Link copied

Case Copied 17 February 2016 12 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GAGELER J
ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY
LTD & ORS APPLICANTS
AND
RIAD ALLAM & ORS RESPONDENTS
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Allam
[2016] HCA 3
17 February 2016
S169/2012
ORDER
1. Set aside the writ for levy of property issued on 23 December 2015.
2.Remit the matter of the claim of the first and sixth respondents pursuant to s 77M of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for remedies for enforcement of the judgment of the High Court of Australia given on 2 May 2013 and the certificate of taxation of costs issued on 2 December 2015 to the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry.
3.The matter be dealt with in the Federal Court as if the steps already taken in this Court had been taken in that Court.
4. The Registrar of this Court forward to the proper officer of the Federal Court photocopies of the following documents filed in this Court:
(a)the application for special leave to appeal filed on 22 June 2012;
(b) the order of the High Court of Australia made on 2 May 2013;

(c) the certificate of taxation issued on 2 December 2015 in respect of costs of $100,229.05;
(d) the first and sixth respondents' application for a writ for levy of property filed on 17 December 2015;
(e) the affidavit of Robert Gorczyca sworn on 17 December 2015;
(f) the writ for levy of property issued on 23 December 2015;
(g) the first and sixth respondents' application for a garnishee order filed on 21 January 2016;
(h) the affidavit of Robert Gorczyca sworn on 21 January 2016;
(i) the submissions filed by the parties on 5 February 2016;
(j) the applicants' summons filed on 5 February 2016;
(k) the affidavit of Michael John Williams sworn on 5 February 2016;
(l) the submissions filed by the first and sixth respondents on 10 February 2016;
(m) the affidavit of Robert Gorczyca sworn on 10 February 2016; and
(n) these orders and reasons for judgment.

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

GAGELER J. On 2 May 2013, the Full Court of the High Court[1] dismissed with costs an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court[2] which had set aside a judgment of a single judge of that Court and remitted to that judge the determination of a number of issues including as to the costs of the proceedings in the Federal Court. The applicants in the application for special leave to appeal were Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd ("Aristocrat") and two associated companies. The respondents included Mr Allam and Tonita Enterprise Pty Ltd ("Tonita"). Mr Allam's and Tonita's costs of the special leave application were subsequently taxed in the amount of $100,229.05. The certificate of taxation was issued by a Taxing Officer of the High Court on 2 December 2015.
[1]

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Allam and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] HCA 3
Decision Date: 17 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, Gageler J considered an application by Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (the applicant) concerning the enforcement of a judgment and costs order previously made by the High Court. The dispute arose from an ex parte application by the first and sixth respondents for remedies to enforce a High Court judgment and a subsequent costs order. The applicant sought to set aside a writ for levy of property and argued for the remittal of the enforcement proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia, claiming a set-off for costs to be taxed in separate Federal Court proceedings.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the writ for levy of property should be set aside due to material non-disclosure on the ex parte application, and whether the claim for remedies for the enforcement of the High Court's costs order should be remitted to the Federal Court of Australia, as contemplated by section 77M of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

Gageler J reasoned that the enforcement of the High Court's judgment and costs order, particularly in circumstances where there was a claim for set-off relating to costs in separate Federal Court proceedings, was more appropriately dealt with by the Federal Court. His Honour applied the principle that where a matter involves the enforcement of a judgment and raises complex issues of set-off or cross-claims that are intertwined with proceedings in another court, remittal to that other court is often the most efficient and just course. The Court also found that the writ for levy of property should be set aside, implicitly due to the material non-disclosure identified in the catchwords.

Consequently, Gageler J ordered that the writ for levy of property be set aside. The matter of the claim for remedies for enforcement of the High Court judgment and costs certificate was remitted to the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry, to be dealt with as if the steps already taken in the High Court had been taken in that Court. The Registrar of the High Court was directed to forward relevant documents to the Federal Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Set aside the writ for levy of property issued on 23 December 2015.

2. Remit the matter of the claim of the first and sixth respondents pursuant to s 77M of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for remedies for enforcement of the judgment of the High Court of Australia given on 2 May 2013 and the certificate of taxation of costs issued on 2 December 2015 to the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry.

3. The matter be dealt with in the Federal Court as if the steps already taken in this Court had been taken in that Court.

4. The Registrar of this Court forward to the proper officer of the Federal Court photocopies of the following documents filed in this Court:

(a) the application for special leave to appeal filed on 22 June 2012;

(b) the order of the High Court of Australia made on 2 May 2013;

(d) the first and sixth respondents' application for a writ for levy of property filed on 17 December 2015;

(e) the affidavit of Robert Gorczyca sworn on 17 December 2015;

(f) the writ for levy of property issued on 23 December 2015;

(g) the first and sixth respondents' application for a garnishee order filed on 21 January 2016;

(h) the affidavit of Robert Gorczyca sworn on 21 January 2016;

(i) the submissions filed by the parties on 5 February 2016;

(j) the applicants' summons filed on 5 February 2016;

(k) the affidavit of Michael John Williams sworn on 5 February 2016;

(l) the submissions filed by the first and sixth respondents on 10 February 2016;

(m) the affidavit of Robert Gorczyca sworn on 10 February 2016; and

(n) these orders and reasons for judgment.

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

GAGELER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GAGELER J

Full text does not contain this section.