CORPORATIONS - cooperation between Australia and foreign courts - assistance from foreign courts having jurisdiction in "external administration matters" under s. 580 of the Corporations Law - letter of request to Supreme Court of Hong Kong to order production and verification of documents - whether request is "a matter relating to winding up" under Chapter 5 - "indirect but relevant connection" a sufficient relationship
WORDS AND PHRASES - definition of "matter" - "subject matter for determination in a legal proceeding, rather than the proceeding itself" - definition of "winding up" - "the process that follows the making of a winding up order" - includes any step taken by a liquidator in getting in assets of corporation - existence of litigation unnecessary
CORPORATIONS - standing to apply to set aside order for request to foreign court - appellant a director of company involved in the subject proceedings - appellant possesses requisite degree of 'closeness' to subject matter of request
MALICIOUS PROCEDURE - abuse of process - letter of request to foreign court to order production and verification of documents - use of power must not be for a purpose foreign to the interests of "the corporation, its contributories or creditors" - request for production of documents a legitimate line of inquiry
Corporations Law s. 580
Hong Kong Bank of Australia Ltd. v Murphy(1992) 28 NSWLR 512 - considered Tooheys Ltd. v Commission of Stamp Duties (NSW)(1961) 105 CLR 602 - considered Elna Australia Pty. Ltd. v International Computers (Aust.) Pty. Ltd.(1987) 14 FCR 461 - considered Gerah Imports Pty. Ltd. v The Duke Group Ltd (in liq.)(1994) 119 ALR 401 - considered Re Crust 'n' Crumbs Bakers (Wholesale) Pty. Ltd. [1992] 2 Qd R 76 - considered
IAN EDWARD JOYE v BEACH PETROLEUM NL AND ANOR. No. SG 3046 of 1994
BEAUMONT, SPENDER AND LEHANE JJ ADELAIDE 14 JUNE 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. SG3046 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:IAN EDWARD JOYE
Applicant
AND:BEACH PETROLEUM NL
First respondent
CORTAUS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second respondent
CORAM: BEAUMONT, SPENDER AND LEHANE JJ. PLACE: SYDNEY (Heard in Adelaide) DATE: 14 JUNE 1996
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Leave to appeal be granted.
The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay seven-eighths of the respondents' costs of the appeal.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. SG3046 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
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 Joye v Beach Petroleum NL
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Joye v Beach Petroleum NL [1996] FCA 502
Case
[1996] FCA 502
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involves an application for leave to appeal from an order made by a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, Branson J., refusing an application by Ian Edward Joye to set aside an order made by another Judge, O'Loughlin J., that a letter of request be sent to the Supreme Court of Hong Kong. The letter of request was sought pursuant to Division 9 of the Corporations Law, which deals with cooperation between Australia and foreign courts in "external administration matters." The order of O'Loughlin J. was made under s.581(4) of the Law, which provides that the Federal Court may request a court of a country other than Australia, that has jurisdiction in external administration matters, to act in aid of, and be auxiliary to, it in an external administration matter. It is accepted that the Supreme Court of Hong Kong has jurisdiction in "external administration matters." The appeal concerns the interpretation of s.581(4) and s.580 of the Corporations Law, and whether the letter of request was made in aid of the Federal Court in an "external administration matter." The court found that the letter of request was made in aid of the Federal Court in an "external administration matter" and that there was no abuse of process. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay seven-eighths of the respondents' costs of the appeal.