Pan Oceanic Bank v Pinto - [2025] VSC 150

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
ENFORCEMENT LIST

S ECI 2023 05833

BETWEEN:

PAN OCEANIC BANK LIMITED (COMPANY NO. 201312745)	Plaintiff
v
KUTILA PINTO	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Barrett AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 December 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Pan Oceanic Bank v Pinto
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 150

---

FOREIGN JUDGMENTS – Application to enforce foreign judgments under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) – Plaintiff obtained judgments in default of appearance from High Court of Solomon Islands – Defendant not personally served with, or aware of, proceedings in Solomon Islands court – Plaintiff sought to rely on substituted service – Yin v Wu [2023] VSCA 130 considered – Failure to serve by known and available electronic means constituted prima facie denial of natural justice – Prima facie denial of natural justice is not displaced by substituted service – Plaintiff did not discharge burden of establishing the law of Solomon Islands as to substituted service, or compliance with any such orders – The prima facie denial of natural justice is not cured by available appellate processes – Zarah Garde-Wilson v Legal Services Board [2008] VSCA 43 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr Hogg of counsel	Rankin Business Lawyer
For the Defendant in-person

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Background

Legislation and Principles

Primary Grounds

Consideration of Procedural Fairness
Consideration of Availability and Exercise of Appellate Processes
Consideration of Merits

Other Grounds

Defamation
Corporate Governance
Improper Banking Practices
Judicial Misconduct and Fraud
Public policy

Conclusion

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By originating motion filed 8 December 2023, the plaintiff seeks orders for the registration, pursuant to s 6 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) (‘FJ Act’) of the following judgments:
(a)Judgment in Default entered on 8 December 2017 of Registrar Myonnie Samani of the High Court of Solomon Islands, in Civil Claim Number 520 of 2017; and
(b)Judgment in Default entered on 21 February 2018 by the Honourable Justice Kouhota of the High Court of Solomon Islands, in Civil Claim Number 519 of 2017;
(collectively, Solomon Islands Judgments)
The Solomon Islands Judgments are based on various commercial loans and guarantees discussed in greater detail below.
By summons filed 16 October 2024, the defendant seeks orders to set aside the plaintiff’s application for the registration of the Solomon Islands Judgments.
The plaintiff relies upon the following documents:
(a)affidavits of Wilson Rano (‘Mr Rano’) sworn on 29 November 2023, 30 April 2024 and 16 July 2024; and
(b)submissions filed on 22 November 2024 and further submissions emailed to the Court on 20 December 2024.
The defendant relies upon the following documents:
(a)affidavit of Kutila Pinto (‘the defendant’) filed on 16 October 2024; and
(b)submissions filed on 15 November 2024 and 18 December 2024.

Background

On 5 May 2015, Pan Oceanic Bank Limited (‘the plaintiff’) and the company Best & Less Limited (‘B&L’),…

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 Pan Oceanic Bank v Pinto

Details

AGLC: Pan Oceanic Bank v Pinto [2025] VSC 150
Case: [2025] VSC 150
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pan Oceanic Bank v Pinto, the plaintiff sought to enforce judgments obtained in default of appearance from the High Court of Solomon Islands against the defendant, who was not personally served with, or aware of, the proceedings in the Solomon Islands court. The defendant argued that substituted service was not permissible under Solomon Islands law, and the failure to serve him constituted a prima facie denial of natural justice. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had to determine whether the plaintiff could enforce the foreign judgments under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth). The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could rely on substituted service to enforce the foreign judgments, given that the defendant had not been served personally and was unaware of the proceedings.

The court found that substituted service, in the circumstances of this case, constituted a prima facie denial of natural justice, as the defendant was not personally served and was not aware of the proceedings. The court further held that this prima facie denial of natural justice was not cured by the available appellate processes in Solomon Islands, as the defendant had no opportunity to be heard. The court noted that the plaintiff had not discharged the burden of establishing the law of Solomon Islands as to substituted service, or compliance with any such orders. The court referred to the case of Yin v Wu [2023] VSCA 130, which held that failure to serve by known and available electronic means constituted a prima facie denial of natural justice, and the case of Zarah Garde-Wilson v Legal Services Board [2008] VSCA 43, which held that the prima facie denial of natural justice is not cured by available appellate processes.

The court held that the plaintiff could not enforce the foreign judgments under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) due to the failure to serve the defendant personally and the resulting prima facie denial of natural justice. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to enforce the foreign judgments.

Orders