Finstro Securities Pty Ltd v Tradecorp Leasing Ltd - [2025] NSWSC 1270

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Finstro Securities Pty Ltd v Tradecorp Leasing Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1270
Hearing dates: 10 October 2025, further submissions 14 October 2025
Date of orders: 29 October 2025
Decision date: 29 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Peden J
Decision:
See [39]

Catchwords:
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – service – leave to proceed under r 11.8AA of UCPR – service in Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands – conflict between Part 11 and Part 11A of the UCPR – whether the Hague Service Convention is an exclusive mechanism for service – exclusive jurisdiction clause – necessary or proper party – not a clearly inappropriate forum – leave granted
CIVIL PROCEDURE – default judgment – claim for debt under r 16.6 of UCPR – judgment awarded

Legislation Cited:
Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters arts 3-6, 10(a), 19
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 11.2, 11.4, 11.8AA, 11.8AC, 11A.2, 11A.4, 16.6, sch 6(b)(iii), 6(b)(iv), 6(h)(i)

Cases Cited:
AGC Capital Securities Pty Ltd v JaiJaifu Modern Agriculture (HK) Limited [2019] NSWSC 62
AIA Australia Ltd v Richards [2017] FCA 84
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yellow Page Marketing BV [2010] FCA 1218
Caswell v Sony/ATV Music Publishing (Australia) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 986
Gloucester (Sub-Holdings 1) Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWSC 1419
Gregory's Transport Pty Ltd v Ray's Haulage Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 333
Hutchinson v AD Securities America LLC [2021] NSWSC 1573
Independent Liquor & Gaming Authority v Melco Resorts & Entertainment Limited [2022] NSWSC 294
Jabiru Satellite Ltd v Societe Generale [2021] VSC 544
Petersen Energía Inversora, S.A.U. v Argentine Republic [2025] NSWSC 1071
Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 244 CLR 144
Rio Tinto Shared Services Pty Ltd v English Datasystems LLC (2021) 65 VR 25
Sinopec International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Su [2019] NSWSC 269
Sloan Global Advisors Pty Ltd v Fenix Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1237
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538
Water Splash, Inc v Menon 581 US (2017)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Finstro Securities (Plaintiff)
Tradecorp Leasing Ltd (First Defendant)
Tradecorp Global Holdings Ltd (Second Defendant)
Tradecorp International Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Shipping Container Rentals Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Bagley (Plaintiff)
C L W Street (Third and Fourth Defendants)
Solicitors:
Watson Mangioni Lawyers Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Third and Fourth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2025/00119677
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Finstro Securities Pty Ltd seeks leave to proceed under r 11.8AA(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) against two defendants located outside Australia, Tradecorp Leasing Ltd and Tradecorp Global Holdings. Finstro also seeks default judgment under r 16.6 of the UCPR against them.
Finstro’s substantive claim concerns contracts dated 9 November 2017:

First Class Securities Pty Ltd provided a secured loan facility to Tradecorp Leasing, on terms set out in…

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 Finstro Securities Pty Ltd v Tradecorp Leasing Ltd 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: [2025] NSWSC 1270
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Finstro Securities Pty Ltd, an Australian company, brought an action against Tradecorp Leasing Ltd, a Hong Kong company, seeking payment of a debt. The dispute was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court centred around the appropriate means of service of the originating process in light of the parties' jurisdictional agreement and the applicable procedural rules. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the jurisdiction clause in the agreement between the parties was effective, and if the court was the appropriate forum for the dispute.

The court considered whether service of the originating process was permissible under the Hague Service Convention or the rules of court. It examined the conflict between Part 11 and Part 11A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Cth) and whether the Hague Service Convention was the exclusive mechanism for service. The court also assessed whether the defendant was a necessary or proper party and if the forum was clearly inappropriate. Ultimately, the court found that the jurisdiction clause was valid, the defendant was a necessary party, and the forum was not clearly inappropriate. Consequently, the court granted leave to proceed with service outside Australia.

The court held that the Hague Service Convention was not an exclusive mechanism for service and that it was permissible to serve the originating process in Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands in accordance with Part 11A of the UCPR. The court found that the jurisdiction clause was properly incorporated into the contract and that the defendant was a necessary party to the proceedings. It also determined that the forum was not clearly inappropriate, and therefore granted leave to proceed with the action. As a result, the court awarded default judgment to the plaintiff under rule 16.6 of the UCPR.

Orders