Balldale Bay Pty Ltd v The Ship “Fury”

[2006] FCA 165

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Balldale Bay Pty Ltd v The Ship “Fury” [2006] FCA 165

BALLDALE BAY PTY LTD v THE SHIP “FURY”
NSD 71 of 2006

ALLSOP J
27 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 71 of 2006

BETWEEN:	BALLDALE BAY PTY LTD APPLICANT
AND:	THE SHIP "FURY" RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1)The proceeding be transferred to the Queensland District Registry and be listed before the Registry Procedure Judge, the Honourable Kiefel J, on a date to be fixed in consultation with her Honour.

(2)The proceeding be listed for directions at a date to be fixed by Kiefel J.

(3)The parties to notify the associate of Kiefel J of these orders as soon as reasonably practical, noting that her Honour is presently in Sydney.

(4)Costs of today be costs in the cause.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 71 of 2006

BETWEEN:	BALLDALE BAY PTY LTD APPLICANT
AND:	THE SHIP "FURY" RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	27 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the parties have requested by short minutes of order that the proceeding be transferred to the Queensland District Registry before the Registry Procedure Judge, Kiefel J.

2. The proceeding is an in personam claim for the balance of the cost of constructing the ship "Fury" in the sum of approximately a little over $53,000.

3. It is appropriate, given the location of the dispute and the consent of the parties, to have the matter removed to the Admiralty list run by Kiefel J in Brisbane.

4. I have made some slight amendments to the orders that have been propounded to me, for reasons that will become obvious.

5. For the benefit of her Honour and for the parties, given the size of the amount, my proposal would have been to hear the parties on the question of the retention of a joint expert to provide a report to the Court as a joint expert.  My intention in that regard was by reason of the small sum involved.  There may be other mechanisms appropriate to the swift and economical resolution of a small dispute such as this.  The other mechanisms may be prompt mediation with any experts retained that the parties may wish; or alternatively, a prompt arbitration under the Federal Court of Australia Act.  It goes without saying that the conduct of the proceeding is a matter for her Honour and I make the following orders:

   (1)The proceeding be transferred to the Queensland District Registry and be listed before the Registry Procedure Judge, the Honourable Kiefel J, on a date to be fixed in consultation with her Honour.

   (2)The proceeding be listed for directions at a date to be fixed by Kiefel J,

   (3)I direct the parties to notify Kiefel Js associate of these orders as soon as reasonably practical, noting that her Honour is presently in Sydney.

   (4)Costs of today be costs in the cause.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop.

Associate:     7 March 2006

Dated:             27 February 2006

Counsel for the Applicant:	A Day
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Thomson Rich O’Connor
Counsel for the Respondent:	M Hockaday
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Thynne & Macartney
Date of Hearing:	27 February 2006
Date of Judgment:	27 February 2006