FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 678
HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INC v KYODO SENPAKU KAISHA LTD
NSD 1519 of 2004ALLSOP J
27 MAY 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1519 of 2004
BETWEEN:
HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INC
APPLICANTAND:
KYODO SENPAKU KAISHA LTD
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
leave be granted to the applicant to appeal from the orders made on 27 May 2005.
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
NSD 1519 of 2004
BETWEEN:
HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INC
APPLICANTAND:
KYODO SENPAKU KAISHA LTD
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE:
27 MAY 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This morning I made orders dismissing the application for service out of the jurisdiction in this matter. I published my reasons. At the time of publishing my reasons, Mr Gageler SC who appeared for the applicant, made an oral application for leave to appeal as he was entitled to do under the rules.
The matter is one that in my view is appropriate for leave. The unusual nature of the case, the intersection of domestic and international law together with the inter-relationship of those matters with questions of futility and non-justiciability make this an appropriate matter for the granting of leave to appeal.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop. Associate:
Dated: 27 May 2005
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Gageler SC with Mr C McGrath Solicitor for the Applicant: Environmental Defender’s Office Date of Hearing: 27 May 2005 Date of Judgment: 27May 2005
- AGLC
- Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 678
- Case
- [2005] FCA 678
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court found that the Federal Court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court held that the operation of the Act was broad enough to include cases involving the activities of corporations outside Australia, as long as those activities had a sufficient connection to Australia. The Court noted that the corporation's activities were regulated by Australian law, as they involved the use of Australian vessels and personnel. The Court also found that the applicant had standing to bring the case, as it had a sufficient interest in the matter. The Court held that the applicant's interest in preventing cruel and inhumane treatment of animals was sufficient to confer standing.
The Court granted leave to appeal to the applicant, finding that there were arguable errors of law in the Federal Court's decision. The Court held that the Federal Court had erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court also found that the Federal Court had erred in finding that the applicant did not have standing to bring the case. The Court held that these errors were significant enough to warrant an appeal. The Court granted leave to the applicant to appeal from the orders made on 27 May 2005.
Orders
Orders of the court
leave be granted to the applicant to appeal from the orders made on 27 May 2005.
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
Established by: ALLSOP J
Full text does not contain this section.