Fightvision Pty Ltd v Tszyu

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Fightvision Pty Ltd v Tszyu [2000] FCA 1282

FIGHTVISION PTY LIMITED v KONSTANTIN TSZYU
N 7281 of 2000

SACKVILLE J
8 SEPTEMBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7281 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	FIGHTVISION PTY LIMITED APPLICANT
AND:	KONSTANTIN TSZYU RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 SEPTEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The proceedings stand over until 26 October 2000 at 9:30 am.

2.   Liberty be granted to apply on 48 hours notice.

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 7281 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	FIGHTVISION PTY LIMITED APPLICANT
AND:	KONSTANTIN TSZYU RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	8 SEPTEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant (“the creditor”) has filed a petition for the sequestration of the estate of the respondent (“the debtor”). When the proceedings were called on for hearing on 7 September 2000, Mr Aldridge SC, who appeared with Mr Coleman for the debtor, applied for an adjournment. I granted the adjournment and indicated that I would provide brief written reasons for doing so. These are my written reasons.

2. The creditor obtained a judgment against the debtor in the sum of $7,310,445 in proceedings determined by Bainton J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales: Fightvision Pty Ltd v Tszyu (unreported, 27 March 1998).  His Honour held that the debtor, who is a well-known professional boxer, had breached a term of his contract with the creditor. The relevant term of the contract prevented the debtor boxing professionally anywhere in the world for a specified period, unless the bout was promoted or co-promoted by the creditor. 

3. According to the findings of Bainton J, the debtor had entered into a contract on 17 January 1992 with Bill Mordey’s Classic Promotions Pty Ltd, a company associated with Mr Mordey, a boxing promoter. Bainton J found that, in or about January 1993, the contract had been novated to the creditor by discharge and the substitution of a new contract in the same terms between the debtor and the creditor. The creditor is another company associated with Mr Mordey.

4. In the same proceedings, Bainton J dismissed a claim by the creditor against Sky Channel Pty Ltd (“Sky Channel”). The creditor had sued Sky Channel for inducing the debtor to breach his contract with the creditor. Other claims were also dealt with by Bainton J but it is not necessary to refer to them.

5. Appeals against the judgment of Bainton J were brought by the debtor (against the judgment finding him liable to the creditor) and by the creditor (against the judgment dismissing the claim against Sky Channel). The Court of Appeal dismissed the debtor’s appeal, but allowed the creditor’s appeal against Sky Channel: Fightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou (1999) 47 NSWLR 473. The Court of Appeal entered judgment for the creditor against…