FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Exhibit Design and Construction Pty Ltd v Azam [2024] FCA 1296
File number: ACD 78 of 2024 Judgment of: STEWART J Date of judgment: 7 November 2024 Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – anti-suit injunction in relation to proceedings in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) – duplicate proceedings in respect of the same underlying dispute – risk of conflicting outcomes – whether there is a serious issue to be tried – whether the public’s confidence in the administration of justice overweighs the prejudice to the respondents Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 32AB(1)
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), s 21
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2008 (ACT), ss 18, 20
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT), s 4
Cases cited: Brewster v BMW Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 35; 366 ALR 171
CSR Limited v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd [1997] HCA 33; 189 CLR 345
Qantas Airways Limited v Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association [2020] FCA 682
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55; 171 CLR 538
Wigmans v AMP Ltd (2018) NSWSC 1118
Division: General Division Registry: Australian Capital Territory National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Number of paragraphs: 36 Date of hearing: 7 November 2024 Counsel for the Applicant: B Buckland Solicitor for the Applicant: MBA Legal Counsel for the Respondents: The respondents appeared in person.
ORDERS
ACD 78 of 2024 BETWEEN: EXHIBIT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: HAIDER AMIR AZAM
First Respondent
SHAMAILA AZAM
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
STEWART J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 NOVEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondents be restrained from taking any further steps directly or indirectly in proceeding XD664/2024 in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (other than to stay or discontinue those proceedings).
2.The costs of the interlocutory application dated 31 October 2024 be the respondents’ costs in the cause.
3.The proceeding be referred to the National Operations Registrar to be docketed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore; revised from the transcript)STEWART J:
Introduction
By interlocutory application, the applicant seeks an injunction restraining the respondents from taking any further steps in a proceeding that they have brought against the applicant in the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). The underlying reason for that anti-suit injunction is that the applicant has a claim against the respondents arising out of the same underlying dispute which it quantifies in an amount substantially in excess of ACAT’s jurisdiction with the result that ACAT cannot determine both the respondents’ claim against the applicant and the applicant’s claim against the respondents. Instead, the applicant has commenced a proceeding in this Court on its claim. If the anti-suit injunction is not…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Exhibit Design and Construction Pty Ltd v Azam 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] FCA 1296
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction in relation to the ACAT proceedings, and whether there was a serious issue to be tried in the Federal Court. The court also needed to consider the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and the potential prejudice to the respondents if the injunction was granted. The court acknowledged that the value of the applicant’s claim cast some doubt on whether a superior court should be involved, but noted that the proceeding could be transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia if deemed appropriate. The court found that the interests of justice necessitated a single forum for the resolution of the parties' dispute, and that there was indeed a serious issue to be tried concerning the termination of the contract and the entitlement to the deposit or damages.
The court concluded that it was necessary to prevent the respondents from continuing their ACAT proceedings to avoid conflicting outcomes and to conserve resources. The court granted the anti-suit injunction, restraining the respondents from taking any further steps in their ACAT proceedings except to stay or discontinue them. The court also ordered that the costs of the interlocutory application be borne by the respondents and referred the proceeding to the National Operations Registrar for docketing. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that disputes are resolved in a single forum to maintain efficiency and avoid potential conflicts in legal outcomes.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondents be restrained from taking any further steps directly or indirectly in proceeding XD664/2024 in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (other than to stay or discontinue those proceedings).
2. The costs of the interlocutory application dated 31 October 2024 be the respondents’ costs in the cause.
3. The proceeding be referred to the National Operations Registrar to be docketed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
In respect of an anti-suit injunction sought in a superior court in respect of a proceeding in a statutory tribunal, it has been said that the basis for such a restraint is the requirements of the interests of justice: Qantas Airways Ltd v Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association [2020] FCA 682 at [9] per Katzmann J.Consideration This Court has jurisdiction in respect of the applicant’s claim, as already mentioned. This Court is not a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of the parties’ dispute. The only consideration to the contrary is the small value of the applicant’s claim which casts doubt on whether a Superior Court should be called on to determine it. Although the applicant’s claim could not have been brought in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia because s 4 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT) does not give jurisdiction on “ACT matters” to that Court, under s 32AB(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) this proceeding as a proceeding in this Court can be transferred to that Court. There would appear to be very good reason to do that, which is a matter that the docket judge can consider once a docket judge is assigned. The parties also indicated that they would be amenable to very early mediation. As the applicant has already sought a stay in ACAT which has been refused, there is no need to consider whether to require the applicant to take such a course. Unfortunately, no reasons for ACAT’s decision appear to have been published. In any event, they have not been made available to me. The result is that I am not able to understand why the stay application was refused and whether the reasons are such as to persuade me that this anti-suit injunction application should also be refused. There is no doubt that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for both proceedings to continue in parallel. That would raise the spectre of conflicting outcomes, but it would also be wasteful of the parties’ resources, as well as the public resources committed to the administration of justice by this Court and ACAT. Every consideration of convenience, expense and efficiency demands that one or other of the proceedings does not progress and that the parties’ dispute be determined in one forum. There is however only one forum where both sides’ claims can be heard and determined in full, and that is this Court. That is because the claim that the applicant asserts is over the jurisdictional threshold of ACAT. The applicant could abandon that portion of its claim that exceeds the threshold of $25,000, and in that way have both claims heard in ACAT, but that could potentially do substantial injustice to the applicant. I am satisfied on the facts that I have set out above that there is a serious issue to be tried in relation to the termination of the contract and consequently the entitlement of the respondents to the return of their deposit or the applicant to any damages. There is also doubtless a serious issue to be tried on the question of steps taken by the applicant, if any, to mitigate its damages.