Ashton v Pope (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ashton v Pope (No 2) [2025] FCA 1121

File number: WAD 232 of 2022
Judgment of: BANKS-SMITH J
Date of judgment: 10 September 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – cross-vesting application to cross-vest Federal Court of Australia proceedings to the Supreme Court of Western Australia – where various extant proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia relating to same factual foundation of conduct of affairs of Welldog Pty Ltd – where parties seek transfer by consent – where potential overlap of issues to be decided – whether case management principles favour management by one court – whether in the interests of justice to transfer – transfer order made
Legislation: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 5(4)
Cases cited:

Ashton v Pope [2022] FCA 1425

JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd v AkzoNobel NV (No 5) [2023] FCA 1248

Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 19
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Solicitor for the Applicant: Clayton Utz
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms R Young SC with Ms M Mečević
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Lavan
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Cowen Schwarz Marschke Lawyers

ORDERS

WAD 232 of 2022
BETWEEN:

SIMON JOHN ASHTON

Applicant

AND:

JOHN MICHAEL POPE

First Respondent

GREGORY LEO QUINN

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BANKS-SMITH J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).

2.All reserved costs of the proceeding until the date of transfer be each party's costs in the cause.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BANKS-SMITH J:

  1. This transfer application concerns a proceeding in this Court about the conduct of the respondents, John Pope and Gregory Quinn, as directors of Welldog Pty Ltd.

  2. The applicant, Simon Ashton, was granted the right to commence the proceeding in this Court by a deed of settlement and release entered into in 2019 which assigned to him all claims that either Welldog or its liquidators may have against Dr Pope and Mr Quinn.

  3. In November 2022 I made service orders facilitating service of the originating application and associated documents on Dr Pope in the United States of America, and published reasons:  Ashton v Pope [2022] FCA 1425.

  4. As summarised in those reasons, Dr Pope was a director of Welldog from December 2010, and Mr Quinn was a director and the secretary from September 2016.  Mr Quinn was also financial controller of Welldog from June 2016 to (at least) March 2017.  Dr Pope was also relevantly the chief executive officer, president, and a director of Gas Sensing Technology Corporation (GSTC).  GSTC is the ultimate parent of Welldog.

  5. Mr Ashton alleges in the Federal Court proceeding that the respondents breached their respective statutory and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ashton v Pope (No 2) 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
[2025] FCA 1121
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ashton v Pope (No 2) involved a cross-vesting application where the applicants sought to transfer Federal Court of Australia proceedings to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The basis of the dispute was the conduct of affairs of Welldog Pty Ltd, which was the subject of various extant proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicants aimed to transfer the Federal Court proceedings by consent, considering the potential overlap of issues to be decided in both courts. The central question before the court was whether case management principles favoured the management of the proceedings by a single court and whether it was in the interests of justice to effect the transfer.

The court considered the established case law that the transfer of proceedings from one court to another should be made in the interests of justice, taking into account factors such as the nature of the issues, the progress of the proceedings, and the convenience of the parties and witnesses. In this case, the court recognised that there were overlapping issues in the various proceedings, and it was in the interests of efficiency and justice to have all matters managed by one court. The court further noted that the applicants had demonstrated a willingness to cooperate and that the transfer would not disadvantage any party. Therefore, the court concluded that the transfer was appropriate.

In light of the considerations outlined, the court made a transfer order pursuant to section 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth). The Federal Court proceedings were to be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Additionally, the court ordered that all reserved costs of the proceeding until the date of transfer be each party's costs in the cause. The entry of orders was to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceeding be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).

2. All reserved costs of the proceeding until the date of transfer be each party's costs in the cause.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.