Leigh-Mardon P/L v PRC Inc

[1993] FCA 458

LEIGH-MARDON PTY. LIMITED v. PRC INC.; PRC INTERNATIONAL PTY. LIMITED and
PLANNING RESEARCH CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL LTD.
No. G900 of 1992
FED No. 458
Number of pages - 2
Practice and Procedure

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Beazley J(1)

CATCHWORDS

Practice and procedure - stay - forum non conveniens - proceedings part of application stayed on grounds of exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause.

Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty. Ltd. and Anor (1990) 171 CLR 538

HEARING

SYDNEY, 6, 7, 11 and 12 May 1993

#DATE 9:7:1993

Counsel for the Applicant: R. Ellicott QC, T.J. Hancock

Solicitors for the Applicant: Michell Sillar

Counsel for the Respondent: S.D. Robb QC

Solicitors for the Respondent: Middletons Moore and Bevins

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The proceedings against the second and third respondents be stayed permanently.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

BEAZLEY J The second and third respondents have each filed notices of motion in identical terms seeking orders that proceedings against each be stayed permanently, or alternatively that the application and statement of claim be struck out as not disclosing a good cause of action against it.

1. These notices of motion were heard at the same time as the first respondent's notice of motion, that proceedings against it be stayed permanently and I have made an order to that effect.

2. The principle which governs the applications for a stay made by the second and third respondents is that propounded by the High Court in Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty. Ltd. and Anor (1990) 171 CLR 538 namely, whether this court is a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of the dispute. The second and third respondents submit that the application should be stayed as the substance of the dispute is between the applicant and first respondent and its prospects of success against the second and third respondents is dependent upon the fate of the claim against the first respondent, as the applicant alleges a wrongful interference by each in the teaming agreement.

3. There was nothing put to me to demonstrate that any issue arose in the case against the second and third respondents which was not intrinsically linked with the claim brought against the first respondent. In those circumstances I am of the opinion that this court is a clearly inappropriate forum and accordingly, I order a stay of proceedings against the second and third respondents.

4. The second and third respondents also seek an order for costs on their notices of motion. However, as the submissions in support of their claims were only short, as was appropriate, and did not extend the hearing of the first respondent's notice of motion I make no order for costs.

5. Because of the decision which I have reached in relation to the stay, I have not considered it necessary to determine whether the application and statement of claim should be struck out as not disclosing good causes of action against the second and third respondents.