Legal Research
Cases
Austrim Nylex Limited v Kroll

Austrim Nylex Limited v Kroll

Case [2001] VSC 168 18 May 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY LAW DIVISION

No. 4908 of 2001

AUSTRIM NYLEX LIMITED

(ACN 009 375 553)

Plaintiff

IRENE JULIANA KROLL AND ORS

Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Warren J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 May 2001
DATE OF RULING:	18 May 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Austrim Nylex Ltd v Kroll and Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 168

---

Stay of Proceedings – related proceeding in Queensland where Constitutional issue is raised – not exercised in ordinary course by court – no prospect of success in appeals shown – no prejudice demonstrated if stay not granted – application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J. Santamaria QC with Mr J.P. Moore	Clayton Utz
For the Eighth and Ninth Defendants	Mr S. Benson	Frenkel Partners
For the Seventh Defendant	Mr G. Elkington appeared on his own behalf

HER HONOUR:

In this proceeding the plaintiff seeks to obtain orders to compulsorily acquire shares held by the various defendants in the company, National Consolidated Limited.

An application is brought by the eighth and ninth defendants seeking to stay the proceeding pending the determination of two appeals in what are said to be two related proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Queensland.

The first of the Queensland proceedings is entitled Elkington v Paulls Limited No. 680 of 2001 and I hereafter refer to that proceeding as the "constitutional appeal". The second proceeding is entitled Elkington v Paulls Limited No. 3262 of 2001 and I hereafter refer to that proceeding as the "substantive appeal".

It is said on behalf of the applicants that there is much benefit to be gained in this court staying the determination of the present proceeding until the outcome is known of the appeals in each of the constitutional and substantive appeals pending determination before the Court of Appeal of Queensland.

Principally, the following two grounds are relied upon by the applicant. First, that the Queensland proceedings are related to the present proceeding in this court. Secondly, that it is in the interests of comity for this court to await the outcome of the determination of the Queensland matters.

The plaintiff opposes the application and urges that the proceeding be determined in the ordinary course in order to achieve commercial certainty. It is also said on behalf of the plaintiff that the delay of the present proceeding in this court continues to cause a drain on the resources of both the plaintiff and the company.

The principles to be applied by a court on a stay application are well known. They are set out in all the relevant authorities. It is a fundamental principle that a plaintiff is entitled to have a proceeding tried in the ordinary course of the procedure and business of the court, subject only to an exercise of the jurisdiction to grant a stay on proper grounds: Rochfort v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1972) 1 NSWLR 16; Dart Industries Inc v Buckley…

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 Austrim Nylex Limited v Kroll

Details

AGLC: Austrim Nylex Limited v Kroll [2001] VSC 168
Case: [2001] VSC 168
Decision Date: 18 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Austrim Nylex Limited versus Kroll, the dispute arose within the Federal Court of Australia. Austrim Nylex Limited sought a stay of proceedings in relation to matters being litigated in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where a constitutional issue had been raised. The request for a stay was not made in the usual course of the proceedings, and Austrim Nylex Limited did not demonstrate a likelihood of success in their appeals. Additionally, they failed to show how they would be prejudiced if the stay was not granted.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Federal Court had the authority to grant a stay of proceedings in relation to matters being litigated in another state court and whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the stay to be granted. The court considered the principles of federalism and the division of judicial powers between the federal and state courts, as well as the criteria for granting a stay of proceedings.

The court found that the Federal Court did not have the power to exercise a stay in the ordinary course of proceedings in relation to matters being litigated in another state court. Furthermore, the applicant had not shown a reasonable prospect of success in their appeals, nor had they demonstrated the necessary prejudice if the stay was not granted. Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the principles of federalism and the division of judicial powers between federal and state courts.

Orders