Kent v Lechmere Financial Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

KENT -v- LECHMERE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS [2002] WASC 75



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2002] WASC 75
Case No:CIV:1082/20024 APRIL 2002
Coram:PULLIN J11/04/02
15Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Issue of writ and service of notice of writ set aside
Action dismissed against first and second defendants
B
PDF Version
Parties:ANDREW LESLIE KENT
LECHMERE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
DRYSDALE INVESTMENTS CORPORATION
ASPERMONT LIMITED

Catchwords:

Courts
Jurisdiction
"Long arm" jurisdiction
Application to set aside issue of writ and service of notice of writ

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 2 r 1, O 5 r 9, O 7 r 1(1), O 10 r 1(1), O 10 r 4(1), O 12 r 6,O 12 r 7, O 58 r 23

Case References:

AIS v Jumbo Scheepvaart (1988) 14 NSWLR 507
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Edensor Nominess Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 1
Bill Discount Services Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Dill-Macky, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 6700; 7 May 1987
BP Australia Ltd v Kirki Shipping Corporation, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940612; 1 November 1994
Brealey v Board of Management Royal Perth Hospital [1999] WASCA 158
Delco Australia Pty Ltd v Equipment Enterprises Inc (2000) 100 FCR 385
GAF Corporation v Amchem Products Inc [1975] 1 Lloyds Rep 601
Koranna Nominees Pty Ltd v Roberts, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 4289; 15 October 1991
Laurie v Carroll (1957-58) 98 CLR 310
Pontin v Wood [1962] 1 QB 594
Shantou Hesheng Commercial Development Co v P & O Swire Containers Ltd [1999] 3 VR 478 at 480
Stanley Kerr Holdings Pty Ltd v Gibor Textile Enterprises Ltd [1978] 2 NSWLR 372
Williams v The Society of Lloyd's [1994] 1 VR 274

Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552
Bell Group NV v Aspinall (1998) 19 WAR 561
Biggs v DPP (1997) 17 WAR 534
Brink's Mat Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350
Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571
Contender 1 Ltd v LEP International Pty Ltd (1988) 82 ALR 394
Newcombe v AME Properties Ltd (1995) 14 WAR 259
Official Solicitor v Stype Investments Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 214
Slingsby v Slingsby [1912] 2 Ch 21
Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 679
Westwind Air Charter Pty Ltd v Hawker De Havilland Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 71

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : KENT -v- LECHMERE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS [2002] WASC 75 CORAM : PULLIN J HEARD : 4 APRIL 2002 DELIVERED : 11 APRIL 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1082 of 2002 BETWEEN : ANDREW LESLIE KENT
    Plaintiff

    AND

    LECHMERE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    First Defendant

    DRYSDALE INVESTMENTS CORPORATION
    Second Defendant

    ASPERMONT LIMITED
    Third Defendant



Catchwords:

Courts - Jurisdiction - "Long arm" jurisdiction - Application to set aside issue of writ and service of notice of writ




Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 2 r…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kent v Lechmere Financial Corporation 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
[2002] WASC 75
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Andrew Leslie Kent initiated proceedings against Lechmere Financial Corporation, Drysdale Investments Corporation, and Aspermont Limited. The court was tasked with deciding whether the writ of summons and the service of the notice of writ were valid, particularly given that the defendants were located outside Australia and had their principal place of business in Monaco. The legal issues centered on whether the court had jurisdiction over the defendants and if the plaintiff had complied with the necessary procedural requirements for serving a writ outside the jurisdiction.

The court held that the plaintiff had not obtained the required leave to issue the writ under Rule 5 Rule 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), which mandates leave for writs to be served out of jurisdiction. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to obtain leave to serve notice of the writ out of jurisdiction under Rule 10 Rule 1(1), which requires the subject matter of the action to fall within specific provisions for service outside the jurisdiction. The court found that the plaintiff's affidavit did not adequately demonstrate that the subject matter of the action fell within any of the sub-paragraphs of Rule 10 Rule 1(1), and therefore, the writ was defective.

Moreover, the court found that the plaintiff had not disclosed all relevant information to the Acting Master when seeking leave to serve the writ out of jurisdiction. This non-disclosure, coupled with the procedural errors, led the court to set aside the issue of the writ and the service of the notice of writ against the first and second defendants. Consequently, the action against the first and second defendants was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.