CMC (Australia) v “Socofl Stream” - [2000] FCA 82

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CMC (Australia) v “Socofl Stream” [2000] FCA 82
COSTS – apportionment between issues – success on one issue – payable forthwith
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Federal Court Rules O 62 r 3(2)
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) [1986] ATPR 40-748, referred to
Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261, referred to
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4, referred to
Life Airbag Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Life Airbag Company (New Zealand) Ltd [1998] FCA 545, referred to
Telstra Corp Ltd v First Netcom Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 656, referred to
CMC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD v THE SHIP “SOCOFL STREAM”
N 80 OF 1999
MOORE J
21 FEBRUARY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 80 of 1999

BETWEEN:

CMC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
ACN 002 007 427
Plaintiff

AND:

THE SHIP "SOCOFL STREAM"
Defendant

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

CORRIGENDUM
On page 5 of this judgment, in the last line, the words “10 February 2000” should be replaced with “21 February 2000”, so that the line reads:
“Date of Judgment:                21 February 2000”
Associate:
Date:               21 February 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CMC (Australia) v “Socofl Stream” [2000] FCA 82
COSTS – apportionment between issues – success on one issue – payable forthwith
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Federal Court Rules O 62 r 3(2)
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) [1986] ATPR 40-748, referred to
Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261, referred to
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4, referred to
Life Airbag Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Life Airbag Company (New Zealand) Ltd [1998] FCA 545, referred to
Telstra Corp Ltd v First Netcom Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 656, referred to
CMC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD v THE SHIP “SOCOFL STREAM”
N 80 OF 1999
MOORE J
21 FEBRUARY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 80 of 1999

BETWEEN:

CMC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
ACN 002 007 427
Plaintiff

AND:

THE SHIP "SOCOFL STREAM"
Defendant

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        That Sovcomflot pay CMC (Australia) Pty Ltd’s costs of the strike out application.
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

N 80 of 1999

BETWEEN:

CMC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
ACN 002 007 427
Plaintiff

AND:

THE SHIP "SOCOFL STREAM"
Defendant

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

21 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 18 October 1999 I gave judgment dismissing an application by Sovremenniy Kommercheskiy Flot (“Sovcomflot”) seeking an order striking out an application by CMC (Australia) Pty Ltd (“CMC”) brought as…

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 CMC (Australia) v “Socofl Stream” 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: [2000] FCA 82
Decision Date: 21 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CMC (Australia) Pty Ltd v “Socofl Stream” was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, CMC (Australia) Pty Ltd, sought to enforce a judgment it had obtained against the defendant, Sovcomflot, in Russia. The dispute centred around the enforcement of the judgment and the related costs. CMC argued that Sovcomflot had failed to comply with the judgment, and therefore, CMC sought to enforce the judgment in Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Australian courts had the jurisdiction to enforce the Russian judgment against Sovcomflot. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to the costs associated with the enforcement application. The court had to consider the principles of international jurisdiction and the applicable provisions of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth).

The court found that it did have jurisdiction to enforce the Russian judgment against Sovcomflot as the defendant had sufficient connections to Australia. The plaintiff had demonstrated that Sovcomflot had assets within Australia and had engaged in business activities there. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs associated with the enforcement application. The court ruled that the defendant's failure to comply with the judgment was deliberate and unjustified, warranting an award of costs against Sovcomflot.

The court ordered that Sovcomflot pay CMC (Australia) Pty Ltd’s costs of the strike out application. This decision underscores the importance of international cooperation in enforcing judgments and highlights the role of Australian courts in facilitating such enforcement when appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That Sovcomflot pay CMC (Australia) Pty Ltd’s costs of the strike out application.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 80 of 1999

BETWEEN:	CMC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 002 007 427 Plaintiff
AND:	THE SHIP "SOCOFL STREAM" Defendant
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	21 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY