Heilbrunn v Lightwood PLC - [2007] FCA 433

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Heilbrunn v Lightwood PLC [2007] FCA 433
Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction – practice and procedure – service out of the jurisdiction – damage suffered wholly or partly within Australia for item 5 in table accompanying Order 8 rule 2
Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4(3)(e) and (f) and 5(1)
Federal Court Rules Order 8 Rule 2
Booth v Phillips [2004] 1 WLR 3292 referred to
Brix-Neilsen v Oceaneering Australia Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 173 applied
Challenor v Douglas [1983] 2 NSWLR 405 applied
Colosseum Investment Holdings Pty Ltd v Vanguard Logistic Services Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 803 applied
Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd v Spanish-Polish Shipping Co Inc (The ‘Katowice II) (1990) 25 NSWLR 568 applied
Flaherty v Girgis (1987) 162 CLR 574referred to
Flaherty v Girgis (1985) 4 NSWLR 248 applied
Marinari v Lloyds Bank Plc [1996] QB 217 referred to
Mazur Media Ltd v Mazur Media GmbH [2004] 1 WLR 2966 referred to
The ‘Pioneer Container’ [1994] 2 AC 324 referred to
Chan P, Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2006 (Thomson)
Selvam GP, Singapore Civil Procedure 2003 (Thomson)
NEIL HEILBRUNN v LIGHTWOOD PLC
NSD 64 OF 2007
ALLSOP J
28 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
NSD 64 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

NEIL HEILBRUNN
Plaintiff

AND:

LIGHTWOOD PLC
Defendant

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MARCH 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be granted to the plaintiff to serve the application and statement of claim in this proceeding on the defendant in the United Kingdom.
2.Such service is:
(a) to take place by private agent in a manner not contrary to the law of United Kingdom and to be effected by no later than 30 April 2007;
(b) to be effected at Hanger 2
North Weald Aerodrome
North Weald
Epping Essex CM16 6AA
United Kingdom

(c) to include the service of these orders and reasons.
3.The proceeding stand over for directions to 9.30 am on 8 June 2007 in Sydney.

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

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
NSD 64 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

NEIL HEILBRUNN
Plaintiff

AND:

LIGHTWOOD PLC
Defendant

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE:

28 MARCH 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by the plaintiff for an order granting leave to serve the application and statement of claim in this proceeding in the United Kingdom, pursuant to Order 8 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules.
The application was supported by two affidavits of Mr Edward Davies of the plaintiff’s solicitors. From those affidavits and the submissions of Mr Davies the following is apparent. The defendant is incorporated and carries on business in the United Kingdom, but not Australia. The plaintiff is the owner of a vintage Vauxhall motor car made in 1921. The car was purchased in 2001 by the plaintiff for…

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.

Continue reading Heilbrunn v Lightwood PLC

Details

AGLC: Heilbrunn v Lightwood PLC [2007] FCA 433
Case: [2007] FCA 433
Decision Date: 28 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Heilbrunn v Lightwood PLC involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Heilbrunn, and the defendant, Lightwood PLC, which is a corporation registered in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff sought leave to serve the application and statement of claim in the Australian court on the defendant in the United Kingdom, as the defendant had its principal place of business in the UK. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff's application for leave to serve the application and statement of claim on the defendant in the UK. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate manner and location for service of the documents, ensuring compliance with the laws of both Australia and the UK.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Hulme held that the court had jurisdiction to grant the application, as the defendant had sufficient connections to New South Wales to justify the exercise of jurisdiction. The court determined that service should be conducted by a private agent in a manner compliant with UK law, and specified the exact location and deadline for service. The court reasoned that the application met the requirements of the relevant rules of court and that the service of process should facilitate a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute. The proceedings were subsequently stood over for further directions.

The final orders granted the plaintiff's application, specifying the method and location for service of the application and statement of claim, and setting a deadline for service. The proceedings were stood over for directions to be given on a future date, allowing both parties to prepare for further steps in the litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave be granted to the plaintiff to serve the application and statement of claim in this proceeding on the defendant in the United Kingdom.

2. Such service is:

(a) to take place by private agent in a manner not contrary to the law of United Kingdom and to be effected by no later than 30 April 2007;

(b) to be effected at Hanger 2

North Weald Aerodrome

North Weald

Epping Essex CM16 6AA

United Kingdom

3. The proceeding stand over for directions to 9.30 am on 8 June 2007 in Sydney.

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

ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.

BETWEEN:	NEIL HEILBRUNN Plaintiff
AND:	LIGHTWOOD PLC Defendant

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	28 MARCH 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY