Facton Ltd v Redac International Pty Ltd

Case [2014] FCA 586


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Facton Ltd v Redac International Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 586

Citation: Facton Ltd v Redac International Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 586
Parties: FACTON LIMITED, G-STAR RAW C.V and G-STAR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 084 011 852) v REDAC INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (ACN 139 119 930), MOHAMAD KALEEL ABDULE AKA KALEEL CADER CADER, RAZICDEEN SARIFDEEN and DC FASHION HUB PTY LTD (ACN 161 678 244)
File number: VID 763 of 2013
Judge: NORTH J
Date of judgment: 26 May 2014
Date of hearing: 26 May 2014
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchword
Number of paragraphs: 6
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr E Heerey
Solicitor for the Applicants: K & L Gates
Counsel for the Respondents: The respondents appeared in person

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 763 of 2013

BETWEEN:

FACTON LIMITED
First Applicant

G-STAR RAW C.V
Second Applicant

G-STAR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 084 011 852)
Third Applicant

AND:

REDAC INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (ACN 139 119 930)
First Respondent

MOHAMAD KALEEL ABDULE AKA KALEEL CADER CADER
Second Respondent

RAZICDEEN SARIFDEEN
Third Respondent

DC FASHION HUB PTY LTD (ACN 161 678 244)
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 MAY 2014

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 27.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), this proceeding be transferred to the Melbourne Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

2.Costs reserved.  

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 763 of 2013

BETWEEN:

FACTON LIMITED
First Applicant

G-STAR RAW C.V
Second Applicant

G-STAR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 084 011 852)
Third Applicant

AND:

REDAC INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (ACN 139 119 930)
First Respondent

MOHAMAD KALEEL ABDULE AKA KALEEL CADER CADER
Second Respondent

RAZICDEEN SARIFDEEN
Third Respondent

DC FASHION HUB PTY LTD (ACN 161 678 244)
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE:

26 MAY 2014

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicants have applied pursuant to section 32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rule 27.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for this proceeding to be transferred to the Melbourne Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The proceeding is well advanced in preparation for trial.

  2. In view of the fact that the respondents have already filed affidavits in response to the Anton Pillar orders made by the Court, it is practical for the Court to refrain from requiring them to file any further affidavits. 

  3. The applicants have filed affidavits which seek to establish the elements of their case in accordance with the directions of the Court.  They do not oppose an order which would not provide for further affidavits from the respondents in the interests of the expedition of the trial.

  4. The second and third respondents appeared at the directions hearing in person. They also appeared with leave on behalf of the corporate respondents. They have indicated to the Court that there are no documents on which they will seek to rely at the hearing, or which concern the sale of G-Star products from shop 38, Village Shopping Centre, Bacchus Marsh and shop 16, 100 Furling Road, Cairnlea Town Centre, Cairnlea, both in the State of Victoria, apart from the documents already in the hands of the applicants. Consequently, no orders for discovery are required.

  5. In support of the argument that the matter be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court, Mr Heerey, who appeared on behalf of the applicants, explained that the case is likely to take three days or less so far as can presently be estimated, and that the likely outcome if the applicants are successful will be orders not exceeding $150,000 plus costs.  Enquiries made from the coordinating judge of the Federal Circuit Court indicate that the case will be heard sooner in that Court than in this Court.

  6. In these circumstances, the proceedings are transferred to the Federal Circuit Court.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.

Associate:

Dated:       4 June 2014

Details
AGLC
Facton Ltd v Redac International Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 586
Case
[2014] FCA 586
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia dealt with an application by Facton Ltd and related entities to transfer their proceedings against Redac International Pty Ltd and associated individuals from the Federal Court to the Federal Circuit Court. The applicants sought the transfer on the basis that the matter was well advanced in preparation for trial and that it was likely to take three days or less. They also argued that the Federal Circuit Court would hear the case sooner than the Federal Court. The respondents did not oppose the transfer if it meant they would not have to file further affidavits.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the application to transfer the proceedings should be granted under section 32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and rule 27.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Justice North found that the matter was well advanced, that the respondents had already filed affidavits in response to Anton Pillar orders, and that the respondents did not intend to rely on any additional documents at trial. Therefore, there was no need for further affidavits from the respondents. The likely outcome of the case was orders not exceeding $150,000 plus costs, which met the monetary threshold for transfer to the Federal Circuit Court. Justice North also noted that the Federal Circuit Court would hear the case sooner than the Federal Court.

Accordingly, Justice North ordered that the proceedings be transferred to the Melbourne Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The Court reserved costs. This decision allowed the case to proceed more expeditiously in the Federal Circuit Court, which was better suited to handle the matter given its complexity and likely duration.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.