Jani-King Franchising, Inc v Jason

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jani-King Franchising, Inc v Jason [2013] QSC 155

PARTIES:

JANI-KING FRANCHISING, INC
(respondent/plaintiff)
v
WONG EE WAUR CARL JASON
(applicant/defendant)

FILE NO/S:

6822/12

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Dallas County, Texas, United States of America.

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 April 2013

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY - SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS – where judgment was entered by the District Court of Dallas Country, Texas against the defendant – where the applicant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland on the basis of the foreign judgment at common law – where no defence was filed – where the defendant only relied upon the argument that the Texas Court did not have jurisdiction – where no prima facie defence was provided by the defendant – whether default judgment should be set aside

Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) s 7 and s 11

Blohn v Desser [1962] 2 QB 116, cited Cook v D A Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd [2004] QCA 52, cited de Santis v Russo [2002] 2 Qd R 230; [2001] QCA 457, considered Emanuel v Symon [1908] 1 KB 302, considered Henry v Geoprosco International Ltd [1976] QB 726, cited National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited v Oasis Developments Pty Ltd [1983] Qd R 441, cited     Von Wyl v Engeler [1983] 3 NZLR 416, cited

COUNSEL:

Self-represented applicant/defendant
D de Jersey for the respondent/plaintiff

SOLICITORS:

Self-represented applicant/defendant
Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the respondent/plaintiff

  1. On 16 May 2011 Jani-King Franchising, Inc (“Jani-King”) obtained a judgment against Wong Ee Waur Carl Jason  (“Mr Wong”) in the sum of $944,725 (plus interest and costs) in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, United States of America.

  1. On 1 August 2012 Jani-King commenced proceedings in this Court based on that judgment.

  1. In its statement of claim Jani-King pleads that:

(a)        Judgment was entered by the District Court of Dallas County, Texas on 16 May 2011;

(b)        The judgment was final and conclusive and disposed of all claims and proceedings between the parties;

(c)        The District Court of Dallas County, Texas had and it exercised jurisdiction over Jani-King because Jani-King voluntarily submitted to that jurisdiction;

(d)        The judgment is for an amount that is fixed or readily calculable;

(e)        Jani-King was the plaintiff in the proceeding before the District Court of Dallas County, Texas and Mr Wong was a defendant to the proceeding who is jointly and severally liable to pay the judgment debt along with other defendants named in the Texas proceedings; and

(f)         Mr Wong has failed or refused to pay the judgment sum.

  1. The matters set out in the paragraph immediately above are the preconditions necessary for a foreign judgment creditor to succeed on an action for debt at common law.[1] The judgment of the Texas Court is not one to which Part 2 of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jani-King Franchising, Inc v Jason 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
[2013] QSC 155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Jani-King Franchising, Inc brought proceedings against Jason for the enforcement of a foreign judgment obtained in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. The applicant sought to enforce the Texas judgment at common law. The defendant did not file a defence in response to the proceedings, but argued that the Texas Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's argument constituted a prima facie defence to setting aside the default judgment.

The court held that the defendant's argument that the Texas Court lacked jurisdiction did not amount to a prima facie defence. The defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim, and therefore the court was not persuaded that the Texas judgment should be set aside. The court emphasised that the defendant's failure to file a defence did not automatically entitle them to relief from the judgment, and that the onus was on the defendant to demonstrate that they had a valid defence to the proceedings. The court found that the defendant had not discharged this onus.

The court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the judgment, and ordered that the application be dismissed with costs. The court held that the defendant had not provided a sufficient basis for the court to interfere with the Texas judgment, and that the default judgment should stand. The court emphasised the importance of parties taking appropriate steps to defend proceedings brought against them, and warned that failure to do so could result in the entry of judgment by default.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.