Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil Pty Ltd - [2006] QSC 184

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil P/L [2006] QSC 184

PARTIES:

INTERLINE HYDROCARBON INC
(plaintiff/first defendant by counterclaim/first respondent)
v
BRENZIL PTY LTD
ACN 051 348 353
(first defendant/first plaintiff by counterclaim/applicant)
NATIONWIDE OIL PTY LTD
ACN 066 383 364
(second defendant/second plaintiff by counterclaim/applicant)
INTERLINE RESOURCES INC
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S6229 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 August 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 June 2006

JUDGE:

Muir J

ORDER:

1. Interline Resources Inc be joined in the proceedings as the second defendant by counterclaim.
2. The action against it is deemed to have commenced with the filing of the applicants’ claim and statement of claim filed on 26 March 2001.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant seeks to join first defendant by counterclaim’s parent company – where application brought outside limitation period – where claim, inter alia, under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether state procedure rules operate where federal jurisdiction exercised – whether application to join falls within provisions of r 69(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Acts Interpretation Act (Qld), s 32C
Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth), s 34, s 35
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 79
Trade Practices Act 1974, s 52, s 82
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69

Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd (T/as Spring Air) v Hatfield (2005) 218 ALR 677, distinguished
Air Link Pty Ltd v Paterson (2005) 218 ALR 700, cited
Bird v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) [2004] QSC 234, cited
Bridge Shipping Ltd v Grand Shipping SA (1991) 173 CLR 231, considered
MAM Mortgages Ltd (in liq) v Cameron Bros (a firm) [2002] QCA 330, considered
PSL Industries Ltd v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd (2003) 7 VR 106, considered
Ramsay v McElroy [2004] 1 Qd R 667, applied
Smith, Stone and Knight Ltd v Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Birmingham [1939] 4 All ER 116, cited
Spreag v Paeson Pty Ltd (1990) 94 ALR 679, cited
Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514, considered
Wrightson v Queensland [2005] QCA 367, cited

COUNSEL:

R J Bond SC, with him D Williams, for the plaintiff/first defendant by counterclaim/respondents
R Douglas SC, with him D de Jersey, for the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim/applicants

SOLICITORS:

Bennett & Philp Solicitors for the plaintiff/first defendant by counterclaim/respondents
Anthony Wright, Solicitor, for the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim/applicants

By this application the plaintiffs by counterclaim, Brenzil Pty Ltd (“Brenzil”) and Nationwide Oil Pty Ltd (“Nationwide”), seek to join as second defendant by counterclaim Interline Hydrocarbon Inc’, (“Hydrocarbon”) parent company, Interline Resources Corporation (“Resources”). The application is opposed on grounds, inter alia, that the causes of action upon which Hydrocarbon sues and on which Resources would sue are statute-barred.

The proceedings

Hydrocarbon’s claim was…

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 Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil 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: [2006] QSC 184
Decision Date: 1 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil Pty Ltd involved a legal dispute in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary applicant, Interline Hydrocarbon Inc, sought to join Interline Resources Inc as a second defendant through a counterclaim. The original defendant, Brenzil Pty Ltd, opposed this application. The dispute encompassed issues under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and raised questions regarding the applicability of state procedure rules in a matter exercising federal jurisdiction.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the state procedure rules, specifically rule 69(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), applied to the applicant's attempt to join Interline Resources Inc as a second defendant by counterclaim. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the application to join the new defendant was permissible despite being brought outside the statutory limitation period.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the application to join the second defendant was permissible under rule 69(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court reasoned that despite the limitation period having passed, the application was still valid as it pertained to a matter of procedural fairness. The court held that the state procedure rules could indeed apply to the case, even though it was exercising federal jurisdiction under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Consequently, the court ruled that Interline Resources Inc would be joined in the proceedings as the second defendant by counterclaim, and the action against it was deemed to have commenced with the filing of the applicants' claim and statement of claim on 26 March 2001.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Interline Resources Inc be joined in the proceedings as the second defendant by counterclaim.

2. The action against it is deemed to have commenced with the filing of the applicants’ claim and statement of claim filed on 26 March 2001.

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:	Interline Hydrocarbon Inc v Brenzil P/L [2006] QSC 184
PARTIES:	INTERLINE HYDROCARBON INC (plaintiff/first defendant by counterclaim/first respondent) v BRENZIL PTY LTD ACN 051 348 353 (first defendant/first plaintiff by counterclaim/applicant) NATIONWIDE OIL PTY LTD ACN 066 383 364 (second defendant/second plaintiff by counterclaim/applicant) INTERLINE RESOURCES INC (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	S6229 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 June 2006
JUDGE:	Muir J
ORDER:	1. Interline Resources Inc be joined in the proceedings as the second defendant by counterclaim. 2. The action against it is deemed to have commenced with the filing of the applicants’ claim and statement of claim filed on 26 March 2001.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant seeks to join first defendant by counterclaim’s parent company – where application brought outside limitation period – where claim, inter alia, under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether state procedure rules operate where federal jurisdiction exercised – whether application to join falls within provisions of r 69(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Acts Interpretation Act (Qld), s 32C Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth), s 34, s 35 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 79 Trade Practices Act 1974, s 52, s 82 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69 Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd (T/as Spring Air) v Hatfield (2005) 218 ALR 677, distinguished Air Link Pty Ltd v Paterson (2005) 218 ALR 700, cited Bird v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) [2004] QSC 234, cited Bridge Shipping Ltd v Grand Shipping SA (1991) 173 CLR 231, considered MAM Mortgages Ltd (in liq) v Cameron Bros (a firm) [2002] QCA 330, considered PSL Industries Ltd v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd (2003) 7 VR 106, considered Ramsay v McElroy [2004] 1 Qd R 667, applied Smith, Stone and Knight Ltd v Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Birmingham [1939] 4 All ER 116, cited Spreag v Paeson Pty Ltd (1990) 94 ALR 679, cited Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514, considered Wrightson v Queensland [2005] QCA 367, cited
COUNSEL:	R J Bond SC, with him D Williams, for the plaintiff/first defendant by counterclaim/respondents R Douglas SC, with him D de Jersey, for the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim/applicants
SOLICITORS:	Bennett & Philp Solicitors for the plaintiff/first defendant by counterclaim/respondents Anthony Wright, Solicitor, for the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim/applicants