De Santis v Russo

Case [2001] QSC 65


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: De Santis v Russo [2001] QSC 065
PARTIES: MIRELLA DE SANTIS
(applicant)
v
MARIA RUSSO
(respondent)
FILE NO/S: 0048/98
DIVISION: Trial Division at Brisbane
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 12 March 2001
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 7 November 2000
JUDGE: Atkinson J
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE – REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT – Application to set aside registration of foreign judgment –whether foreign court had jurisdiction – whether judgment obtained by  fraud – whether judgment contrary to public policy – Foreign Judgments Act 1991(Cth), ss 6 and 7

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 4
Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) ss 3(1), 6 and 7
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), Pt 6
Supreme Court (Foreign Judgments) Rules 1993, r 4(1)(b).

Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co. (1882) 10 QBD 295, followed
Aksionairnoye Obschestro A.M. Luther v James Sagor & Co [1921] 3 KB 532, followed
Attorney-General (United Kingdom) v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 30, considered
Bertuch v Lynch (1998) FLC ¶ 92 –796, considered
Close v Arnot NSWSC No10107 of 1996, 21 November 1997, considered
Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376, considered
Cosgrove v Johns [2000] QCA 157, CA No 453 of 1998, 5 May 2000, followed
Emanuel v Symon [1998] 1 KB 302, considered
Hunt v BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 565, followed
In the Marriage of Smith [1984] 9 FamLR 675, considered
Lepre v Lepre [1965] P 52, followed
Loucks v Standard Oil Co of New York (1918) 224 NY 99, considered
Morf-Zinggeler v Morf [1999] WASC 10, SC No 11 of 1998, 27 April 1999, considered

Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco (1992) 2 WLR 621, followed

Pennoyer v Neff 95 US 714, 24 L Ed 565, followed.

Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517, followed

Re Macartney [1921] 1 Ch 522, not followed

Re Monroe Schneider Associates (Inc) v Barry Lee Schneider (1992) 37 FCR 234, followed

Skene v Dale [1990] VR 605, considered

Stern v National Australia Bank [1999] FCA 1421, followed

Tobin v Tobin (1999) FLC ¶ 92 – 848, considered

Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Astro Dinamico [1984] 1 WLR 438, followed

Vervaeke v Smith [1983] AC 145 at 164, considered

Von Wyl v Engeler [1998] 3 NZLR 416, followed

Yoon v Song [2000] NSWSC 1147, SC No 10737 of 1998, 8 December 2000, considered

COUNSEL: SJ Lee for Applicant
SOLICITORS: Ellison Moschella & Co for Applicant
Nicholsons Solicitors for Respondent
  1. ATKINSON J:  This is an application pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) (“the FJ Act”) to set aside the registration of a judgment ordered by Fryberg J on 12 January 1998.

  1. The application was made by Mirella De Santis who is the widow of Giulio De Santis.  Giulio De Santis emigrated to Australia from Italy on 3 March 1961 after legally separating from…

Continue reading De Santis v Russo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
De Santis v Russo [2001] QSC 65
Case
[2001] QSC 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of De Santis v Russo involved an application by De Santis to set aside the registration of a foreign judgment obtained by Russo in an Italian court. The application was brought under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) and argued on the grounds that the Italian court lacked jurisdiction, that the judgment was obtained by fraud, and that it was contrary to Australian public policy. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining these issues.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Italian court had jurisdiction to make the judgment, whether the judgment was obtained by fraud, and whether the judgment contravened Australian public policy. These issues were pivotal in deciding whether the registration of the foreign judgment should be set aside. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), specifically sections 6 and 7, which provide the criteria for setting aside the registration of a foreign judgment.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Italian court had jurisdiction to make the judgment and that there was no evidence to support the claim of fraud. Additionally, the court determined that the judgment did not contravene Australian public policy. Given these findings, the court held that the application to set aside the registration of the foreign judgment should be dismissed. The court’s decision was grounded in the lack of evidence supporting the grounds for setting aside the judgment as per the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.