Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd - [2001] FCA 421

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Limited [2001] FCA 421
COURTS – practice and procedure – cross-vesting – representative proceeding involving federal and common law claims – federal claim struck out – real issue raised about the Court’s accrued jurisdiction in respect of the common law claim – whether it is in the interests of justice to transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt IVA s 33G
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 5(4)(b)
Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 4A
Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (Vic) s 11
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 1572 - distinguished
McIntosh v National Australia Bank Ltd (1988) 17 FCR 482 - distinguished
Bell Group v Westpac (2000) 173 ALR 427 - considered
JOHNSON TILES PTY LTD v ESSO AUSTRALIA LIMITED
VG 519 OF 1998 AND VG 524 OF 1998
JUDGE:         MERKEL J
DATE:           12 APRIL 2001
PLACE:         MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 519 OF 1998
VG 524 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

JOHNSON TILES PTY LTD AND OTHERS
APPLICANTS

ESSO AUSTRALIA LTD AND ANOTHER
RESPONDENTS/CROSS-CLAIMANTS

AND:

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION OF VICTORIA AND OTHERS
CROSS RESPONDENTS/CROSS-CLAIMANTS

BHP PETROLEUM (BASS STRAIT) PTY LTD
CROSS-RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MERKEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 APRIL 2001

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT within 14 days the applicants bring in agreed minutes of orders to give effect to these reasons for judgment and, in the event that any party is not in agreement with the orders proposed by the applicants, that party bring in its proposed orders within 14 days.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 519 OF 1998
VG 524 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

JOHNSON TILES PTY LTD AND OTHERS
APPLICANTS

ESSO AUSTRALIA LTD AND ANOTHER
RESPONDENTS/CROSS-CLAIMANTS

AND:

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION OF VICTORIA AND OTHERS
CROSS-RESPONDENTS/CROSS-CLAIMANTS

BHP PETROLEUM (BASS STRAIT) PTY LTD
CROSS-RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MERKEL J

DATE:

12 APRIL 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In September 1998 an explosion and fire occurred at the respondents’ (“Esso”) Longford plant. Shortly thereafter the applicants commenced a representative proceeding against Esso under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (“the FCA Act”). Esso brought a cross claim seeking contribution and indemnity from numerous cross respondents, including agencies of the State of Victoria (“the State entities”).
The applicants’ proceeding in this Court was based on two causes of action: negligence and breach of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). After numerous interlocutory challenges to the s 52 claims, a Full Court finally struck them out as untenable: see Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd (ACN 004 576 103) v Esso Australia Ltd (2000) FCA 1572. Although a Pt IVA proceeding requires a federal claim to found the jurisdiction of the Court (s 33G of the FCA Act),…

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 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia 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: [2001] FCA 421
Decision Date: 12 APRIL 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd and others filed a representative proceeding against Esso Australia Ltd following an explosion and fire at Esso's Longford plant. The applicants sought damages for negligence and breach of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Esso brought a cross claim seeking contribution and indemnity from numerous cross respondents. The Full Court struck out the s 52 claims, and the High Court granted Esso and the State entities special leave to appeal against the Full Court's decision that the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the negligence claims. The key legal issue was whether the proceeding should remain in the Federal Court or be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The Court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the proceeding was now a common law proceeding in negligence and that the issues raised on the cross-claim would no longer involve any substantial federal cause of action. The Court found that the Supreme Court was better placed to hear and determine all of the claims in the matter and that the risks of absence of jurisdiction in the Supreme Court were less than those in the Federal Court. The Court also considered the interests of the applicants and group members who expected their claims to be adjudicated in a court with jurisdiction. The Court ordered that the proceeding be transferred to the Supreme Court within 14 days, but if any or all of the applicants commenced a related proceeding in the Supreme Court within that period, the transfer would take effect upon the commencement of that proceeding. The Court also made orders relating to costs incurred in the Federal Court proceeding.

The Court's decision was based on the need to ensure that the claims were heard in a court with undoubted jurisdiction and to avoid duplication of interlocutory proceedings and liability for interlocutory costs. The Court considered the applicants' concerns about procedural and costs risks but ultimately determined that it was in the interests of justice to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court's decision aimed to provide certainty and efficiency in the resolution of the claims while taking into account the complex jurisdictional issues involved.

Orders