Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon - [1991] HCATrans 259

~ '.,-~-~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl13 of 1991
B e t w e e n -
BALTIC SHIPPING COMPANY

Respondent Appellant

and
JOAN NORMA DILLON

Applicant Respondent

Application for security for

costs

GAUDRON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON WEDNESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 1991, AT 10.25 PM

Baltic(2)

12/9/91

MR A.W. STREET:

May it please the Court, I appear with my

learned friend, MR G.J. NELL, for the appellant,
respondent to the application. (instructed by
Norton Smith & Co)

MR P.E. KING:

May it please the Court, I appear for the

applicant, Mrs Dillon. (instructed by Dunhill
Madden Butler)

HER HONOUR: It is your application, Mr King.

MR KING:

Yes, it is, Your Honour.

Does Your Honour have a

copy of our summons which was filed on 5 September?

HER HONOUR:

The 6th, perhaps.

MR KING:

Yes, Your Honour.

In support of that is an

affidavit of Rodney Edward Withnell, sworn
5 September 1991.

HER HONOUR:	Yes, I also have that.
MR KING:	Your Honour, we have prepared an outline of

written submissions in support of our application
for security - - -

MR STREET:

I have a number of objections to that affidavit,

Your Honour, which I wish to take when my learned
friend seeks to read it.

HER HONOUR:

Yes.

MR KING:

- - - to assist the Court.

I will hand those up.

I will supply a copy to my friend.

HER HONOUR:	Do you wish me to read that at this stage?
MR KING:	It may be convenient as an outline of our case,

Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:	Have you been provided with a copy?
MR STREET:	I have, Your Honour.	The only thing I would say

is that it may be more convenient simply to have,
first of all, the evidence put before the Court
before one embarks on submissions in that I think
there is both evidence that will - - -

HER HONOUR:

There are a number of legal issues.

I mean,

they may be capable of simple resolution, but - - -

MR STREET: Having said that, Your Honour, I certainly do

not object - - -

HER HONOUR:

No, I was just wondering.

It might perhaps be

better if I read the outline and indicate the
problems that I already feel about this matter.

Baltic(2)	12/9/91
MR KING:	I am happy to have the evidence examined first.

We prepared this outline of submissions to
indicate, Your Honour, the general thrust of the
way in which we put our case.

HER HONOUR:

There is some irony in the application itself,

is there not, being based on the notion that the collapse of the Soviet Socialist Republic brings
certain economic consequences for the western world
in its train that must be resolved here and now in
this action.

MR KING:

Mrs Dillon, all she can see is that the guarantee

of a judgment…

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 Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon 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: [1991] HCATrans 259
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of Australia involved an application by Mrs Dillon against the Baltic Shipping Company. The precise nature of the dispute is not fully detailed in the provided transcript, but it appears to concern an application for security, likely in relation to a judgment or potential judgment, and involves issues arising from the collapse of the Soviet Socialist Republic and its economic consequences.

The legal issues before the Court included the admissibility of evidence presented in an affidavit, specifically concerning statements of fact that were objected to on the grounds of form and accuracy. The Court was also required to consider the relevance and impact of the collapse of the Soviet Union on the economic circumstances affecting the parties and the application.

The Court, presided over by Her Honour, indicated that it had read the outline of submissions and noted the objections raised by the Baltic Shipping Company. The objections to the affidavit focused on the form of certain statements, with Mr Street arguing that they were conclusions rather than admissible evidence, and that their accuracy was disputed. For instance, a statement regarding a stay on other plaintiffs was objected to as being a conclusion and potentially incorrect, with the proper evidence being an order or transcript. Similarly, a passage concerning damages and delay was also challenged on the grounds of form.

Orders