Franklin v GHF Pty Ltd - [2014] FCA 793

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Franklin v GHF Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 793

Citation: Franklin v GHF Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 793

Parties:
GUY ROBERT FRANKLIN , TERENCE WILLIAM MOORE and GFC HOBART PTY LTD ACN 132 428 981 v GHF PTY LTD ACN 107 070 280, DAMIEN BAIN, MARIANNA GIURGUIS, KEITH PERUMAL, JASPRI PRIVATE PTY LTD ACN 099 027 059 and SIMONE SMITH;

GHF PTY LTD ACN 107 070 280 v DAMIEN BAIN, MARIANNA GIURGUIS, KEITH PERUMAL, JASPRI PRIVATE PTY LTD ACN 099 027 059 and SIMONE SMITH;

DAMIEN BAIN v GHF PTY LTD ACN 107 070 280; MARIANNA GIURGUIS, KEITH PERUMAL, JASPRI PRIVATE PTY LTD ACN 099 027 059 and SIMONE SMITH

File number(s): TAD 14 of 2013

Judge(s): DAVIES J

Date of judgment: 31 July 2014

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for transfer to the Victorian District Registry refused

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 48

Cases cited:
Comello Pty Ltd v Feeney [2011] FCA 1334
Mortimer v Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd (ACN 086 294 028) (Administrators Appointed) (in liq) [2009] FCA 227
National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v The Sentry Corporation (1988) 19 FCR 155
Nazdall Pty Ltd v Herrmann [2012] FCA 994

Date of hearing: 18 July 2014

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 10

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr B McTaggert SC

Solicitor for the Applicants: Carrick Gill Smyth

Counsel for the First Respondent / Cross-Claimant in the first Cross-Claim / First Cross-Respondent in the second Cross-Claim: Mr J Slattery

Solicitor for the First Respondent / Cross-Claimant in the first Cross-Claim / First Cross-Respondent in the second Cross-Claim: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Counsel for the Second Respondent / First Cross-Respondent in the first Cross-Claim / Cross-Claimant in the second Cross-Claim: The second respondent, first cross-respondent in the first cross-claim and cross-claimant in the second cross-claim did not appear

Counsel for the Third Respondent / Second Cross-Respondent in the first and second Cross-Claim: The third respondent and second cross-respondent did not appear

Counsel for the Fourth Respondent / Third Cross-Respondent in the first and second Cross-Claim: The fourth respondent and third cross-respondent and did not appear

Counsel for the Fifth Respondent / Fourth Cross-Respondent in the first and second Cross-Claim: The fifth respondent and fourth cross-respondent did not appear

Counsel for the Sixth Respondent / Fifth Cross-Respondent the first and second Cross-Claim: The sixth respondent and fifth cross-respondent appeared in person

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

TAD 14 of 2013

BETWEEN:
GUY ROBERT FRANKLIN
First Applicant

TERENCE WILLIAM MOORE
Second Applicant

GFC HOBART PTY LTD ACN 132 428 981
Third Applicant

AND:

AND BETWEEN:

AND:

AND BETWEEN:

AND:

GHF PTY LTD ACN 107 070 280
First Respondent

DAMIEN BAIN
Second Respondent

MARIANNA GIURGUIS
Third Respondent

KEITH PERUMAL
Fourth Respondent

JASPRI PRIVATE PTY LTD ACN 099 027 059
Fifth Respondent

SIMONE SMITH
Sixth Respondent

GHF PTY LTD ACN 107 070 280
Cross-Claimant (in the first Cross-Claim)

DAMIEN BAIN
First Cross-Respondent

MARIANNA GUIRGUIS
Second Cross-Respondent

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 Franklin v GHF Pty 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: [2014] FCA 793
Decision Date: 31 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Franklin, a resident of New South Wales, brought a claim against GHF Pty Ltd, a Victorian company, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute centred around contractual issues arising from a failed business arrangement. The first respondent, another party involved in the case, sought to transfer the matter to the Victorian District Registry of the Federal Court, claiming that it was more appropriate due to jurisdictional and convenience factors.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the application to transfer jurisdiction was justified. The court considered the principles of forum non conveniens and the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the applicability of the Federal Circuit Court’s jurisdiction under the Corporations Act 2001. The applicant argued that the transfer would facilitate a more efficient resolution of the dispute given the location of relevant witnesses and documents in Victoria. However, the court had to weigh these factors against the established jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court in matters involving corporations and the need to avoid fragmenting the proceedings.

After a detailed analysis of the jurisdictional and procedural aspects, the court found that the application to transfer did not meet the necessary threshold. The Federal Circuit Court retained its jurisdiction over the matter, and the transfer was deemed unnecessary. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Federal Circuit Court's jurisdiction and the principle that the transfer should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the first respondent was ordered to pay the applicants’ costs associated with the interlocutory application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The first respondent’s interlocutory application filed 17 July 2014 be dismissed.

2. The first respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the interlocutory application.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:	Franklin v GHF Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 793
Parties:	GUY ROBERT FRANKLIN , TERENCE WILLIAM MOORE and GFC HOBART PTY LTD ACN 132 428 981 v GHF PTY LTD ACN 107 070 280, DAMIEN BAIN, MARIANNA GIURGUIS, KEITH PERUMAL, JASPRI PRIVATE PTY LTD ACN 099 027 059 and SIMONE SMITH; GHF PTY LTD ACN 107 070 280 v DAMIEN BAIN, MARIANNA GIURGUIS, KEITH PERUMAL, JASPRI PRIVATE PTY LTD ACN 099 027 059 and SIMONE SMITH; DAMIEN BAIN v GHF PTY LTD ACN 107 070 280; MARIANNA GIURGUIS, KEITH PERUMAL, JASPRI PRIVATE PTY LTD ACN 099 027 059 and SIMONE SMITH
File number(s):	TAD 14 of 2013
Judge(s):	DAVIES J
Date of judgment:	31 July 2014
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for transfer to the Victorian District Registry refused
Legislation:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 48
Cases cited:	Comello Pty Ltd v Feeney [2011] FCA 1334 Mortimer v Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd (ACN 086 294 028) (Administrators Appointed) (in liq) [2009] FCA 227 National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v The Sentry Corporation (1988) 19 FCR 155 Nazdall Pty Ltd v Herrmann [2012] FCA 994
Date of hearing:	18 July 2014
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	10
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr B McTaggert SC
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Carrick Gill Smyth
Counsel for the First Respondent / Cross-Claimant in the first Cross-Claim / First Cross-Respondent in the second Cross-Claim:	Mr J Slattery
Solicitor for the First Respondent / Cross-Claimant in the first Cross-Claim / First Cross-Respondent in the second Cross-Claim:	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent / First Cross-Respondent in the first Cross-Claim / Cross-Claimant in the second Cross-Claim:	The second respondent, first cross-respondent in the first cross-claim and cross-claimant in the second cross-claim did not appear
Counsel for the Third Respondent / Second Cross-Respondent in the first and second Cross-Claim:	The third respondent and second cross-respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent / Third Cross-Respondent in the first and second Cross-Claim:	The fourth respondent and third cross-respondent and did not appear
Counsel for the Fifth Respondent / Fourth Cross-Respondent in the first and second Cross-Claim:	The fifth respondent and fourth cross-respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Sixth Respondent / Fifth Cross-Respondent the first and second Cross-Claim:	The sixth respondent and fifth cross-respondent appeared in person

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	TAD 14 of 2013