Mackellar Mining Equipment Pty Ltd v Thornton

The matter before the court involved an appeal by Mackellar Mining Equipment Pty Ltd against a decision of the Queensland Supreme Court which had refused their application for a permanent anti-suit injunction against proceedings commenced by the respondents in the State of Missouri, USA. The underlying dispute arose from a plane crash in North Queensland in 2008, which resulted in the deaths of two pilots and thirteen passengers. The respondents, relatives of the deceased, commenced proceedings against the appellants in Missouri in May 2008. The appellants sought injunctive relief in the Queensland Supreme Court in March 2017, arguing that the Missouri proceedings were vexatious and oppressive. The primary judge found that the appellants had delayed in seeking injunctive relief, that the Missouri proceedings would likely apply Australian law, and would be a jury trial and ready for trial. The judge refused the application for a permanent anti-suit injunction, finding that the Missouri proceedings were not vexatious or oppressive.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in her findings in relation to the delay, the applicability of Australian law, and the readiness of the Missouri proceedings for trial. The court was also required to decide whether these findings formed part of the reasoning to refuse the application for a permanent anti-suit injunction. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the Missouri proceedings were vexatious or oppressive. The court was further required to determine whether the appeal could be reopened to adduce further evidence, and if so, whether such evidence, if led, would probably have an important influence on the result of the appeal.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in her findings in relation to the delay, the applicability of Australian law, and the readiness of the Missouri proceedings for trial. The court found that these findings formed part of the reasoning to refuse the application for a permanent anti-suit injunction. The court also found that the Missouri proceedings were not vexatious or oppressive. The court found that the circumstances did not warrant the reopening of the appeal to adduce further evidence, and that even if the evidence was led, it would not probably have an important influence on the result of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application and the appeal.