Legal Research
Cases
I-Achieve v Barton

I-Achieve v Barton

Case [2001] NSWSC 1003 12 November 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: I-Achieve v Barton [2001] NSWSC 1003

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Commercial List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 50107/01

HEARING DATE(S): 19.10.01

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 November 2001

PARTIES :

I-Achieve Technology Limited -v- Barton Capital Securities Pty Ltd & Albert Yue-Ling Wong

JUDGMENT OF: Hunter J

COUNSEL : Applicant/Defendants: A McGrath
Respondent/Plaintiff: P Barham

SOLICITORS: Applicant/Defendants: Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Respondent/Plaintiff: Somerville & Co

CATCHWORDS: Practice & procedure - application to strike out - abuse of process - re-litigation of issues by unsuccessful litigant in prior proceedings - no issue estoppel - principles upon which discretion exercised.

LEGISLATION CITED: Foreign Acquisitions & Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Rippon v Chilcotin [2001] NSWCA 142
State Bank of NSW v Stenhouse Ltd (1997) Aust Tort Rep 81-423
R v O'Halloran (2000) 36 ACSR 315
Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404
Reichel v Macgrath (1889) 14 App Cas 665
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378
Sea Culture International Pty Ltd v Scoles (1991) 32 FCR 275
Coffey v Secretary Department of Social Security (1999) 86 FCR 434

DECISION: Application dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

HUNTER J

MONDAY 12 NOVEMBER 2001

50107/01 I-ACHIEVE TECHNOLOGY LTD -V- BARTON CAPITAL SECURITIES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an application by notice of motion for an order that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to Pt 13 r 5(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules which provides as follows:

“Where in any proceedings it appears to the Court that in relation to the proceedings generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings…

(c) the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court,

the Court may order that the proceedings be stayed or dismissed generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings.”

2 The proceedings brought by I-Achieve Technology Limited (I-Achieve) against Barton Capital Securities (Barton) and Albert Yue-Ling Wong (Wong) seek damages in the sum of approximately $3,400,000. There are no prior proceedings between the parties. It has not been submitted that the plaintiff’s contentions do not disclose good causes of action.

3 Having regard to the nature of the application, it is necessary I think to identify with some particularity the precise allegations relied upon by I-Achieve in these proceedings. The allegations are as follows:

(a) On 3 July 2000 I-Achieve acquired 19.9% of the issued shares of TV Satellite Group Ltd (Satellite) for $3,379,957.60 (the transaction).

(b) Barton, through its director Wong, acted as stockbroker for I-Achieve on the transaction pursuant to a retainer of 28 June 2000.

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 I-Achieve v Barton

Details

AGLC: I-Achieve v Barton [2001] NSWSC 1003
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1003
Decision Date: 12 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of I-Achieve versus Barton was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant, I-Achieve, sought to strike out the respondent's proceeding on the grounds that it constituted an abuse of process and amounted to the re-litigation of issues previously decided against the respondent. The court was asked to consider whether the principles guiding the exercise of discretion in such circumstances warranted the dismissal of the proceeding.

The court identified the key legal issues as whether the respondent's proceeding was an abuse of process and whether it amounted to the re-litigation of issues that had already been decided against the respondent in prior proceedings. The court further considered whether the respondent was estopped from relitigating the issues and the principles that should guide the exercise of the court's discretion in such matters.

The court held that the respondent's proceeding was an abuse of process and amounted to the re-litigation of issues that had already been determined against the respondent in prior proceedings. The court found that there was no issue estoppel as the issues in the current proceeding were not identical to those in the prior proceeding. The court held that the principles guiding the exercise of discretion in such circumstances included the need to protect the court's process from abuse and to prevent the re-litigation of issues that had already been decided. The court exercised its discretion to strike out the proceeding on the grounds of abuse of process and re-litigation of issues.

The court ordered that the respondent's proceeding be struck out and that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application. The court also made no order as to costs for the proceeding as a whole.

Orders