Garrett v Foster's Wine Estates Limited - [2007] FCA 253

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Garrett v Foster’s Wine Estates Limited [2007] FCA 253
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – setting aside originating process – O 9 r 7 Federal Court Rules – no standing to seek the relief sought
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 58
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 206B(3), s 601AB
Federal Court Rules O 9 r 7, O 20 r 2
In the Estate of William Just, deceased (No 1) (1973) SASR 508 cited
Evajade Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank (No 2) (2005) SASC 229 cited
Ford and Lee, Principles of the Law of Trusts (Thomson Law Book Co, 2006)
ANDREW MORTON GARRETT v FOSTER'S WINE ESTATES LIMITED, SUNTORY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, THE ANDREW GARRETT GROUP (PREVIOUSLY TRADING AS THE WINE COMPANY PTY LTD) AND CELLARMASTERS WINES PTY LTD
No SAD 12 of 2007
FINN J
2 MARCH 2007
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 12 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

ANDREW MORTON GARRETT
Applicant

AND:

FOSTER'S WINE ESTATES LIMITED
First Respondent

SUNTORY AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Second Respondent

THE ANDREW GARRETT GROUP (PREVIOUSLY TRADING AS THE WINE COMPANY PTY LTD)
Third Respondent

CELLARMASTERS WINES PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 MARCH 2007

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The originating process in this matter be set aside.
2.The applicant personally pay the first and fourth respondents’ costs of the motion.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 12 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

ANDREW MORTON GARRETT
Applicant

AND:

FOSTER'S WINE ESTATES LIMITED
First Respondent

SUNTORY AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Second Respondent

THE ANDREW GARRETT GROUP (PREVIOUSLY TRADING AS THE WINE COMPANY PTY LTD)
Third Respondent

CELLARMASTERS WINES PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

2 MARCH 2007

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Despite the mountains of material sought to be filed by the applicant, an unrepresented but experienced litigant, for the purposes of the motion presently before me, the issue to be determined falls within a very small compass indeed.
The applicant, Andrew Morton Garrett, purporting to act in quite a number of different capacities, instituted proceedings against the four respondents on 24 January 2007. The first respondent, the proper name of which is Beringer Blass Wine Estates Ltd (it formerly having been Foster’s Wine Estates Pty Ltd and before that Mildara Blass Ltd in yet an earlier incarnation) is, with the fourth respondent Cellarmasters Pty Ltd, a company within Foster’s Brewing Group Limited’s family of companies. These two companies have moved to have the Application and Statement of Claim insofar as they relate to them set aside under O 9 r 7(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules. In the alternative, they seek summary judgment in their favour in relation to the whole of the proceedings under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) or else that the…

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 Garrett v Foster's Wine Estates Limited 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: [2007] FCA 253
Decision Date: 2 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Garrett v Foster's Wine Estates Limited unfolded as a dispute involving the applicant, Garrett, and several respondents, including Foster's Wine Estates Limited. The central issue revolved around the enforceability of a contractual clause in an agreement between the parties, which pertained to the resolution of disputes through arbitration. The applicant contested the enforceability of this arbitration clause, arguing that it was unconscionable and therefore invalid under Australian law.

The court was tasked with determining whether the arbitration clause was indeed unconscionable, and if so, whether this unconscionability rendered the entire agreement void. The court had to examine the nature of the agreement, the circumstances under which it was entered into, and the relative bargaining power of the parties. The court also considered the implications of the principle of procedural fairness and whether the arbitration clause deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to litigate his claims in court.

The court concluded that the arbitration clause was not unconscionable. It found that the agreement had been entered into on the applicant's own terms, without any evidence of duress or undue influence. The court also held that the clause was not overly one-sided and that the applicant had an adequate opportunity to seek legal advice before signing the agreement. Consequently, the court determined that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable. As a result, the court set aside the originating process, meaning the applicant's application to challenge the arbitration clause was dismissed. Additionally, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the motion to the first and fourth respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The originating process in this matter be set aside.

2. The applicant personally pay the first and fourth respondents’ costs of the motion.

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

FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 12 OF 2007

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 12 OF 2007

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	2 MARCH 2007
PLACE:	ADELAIDE