Piatek v Piatek & Siudy

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Piatek v Piatek;
Piatek v Piatek & Siudy [2008] QSC 75

PARTIES:

RENATA ANNA PIATEK
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
STAN (STANISLAW) WALDEMAR PIATEK
(defendant/applicant)

RENATA ANNA PIATEK
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
STAN (STANISLAW) WALDEMAR PIATEK
(defendant/applicant)
MAGDALENA JOANNA SIUDY
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S3439/05
S654/07

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 April 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 April 2008

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

Application dismissed. Order that the two proceedings be heard together.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — STAY OF PROCEEDINGS — CLEARLY INAPPROPRIATE FORUM
where matrimonial proceedings are pending in a foreign jurisdiction -  where plaintiff claims equitable interest property in Queensland - where plaintiff seeks orders against a person who is not a party to foreign proceedings – where judgment in a foreign court is not enforceable in Australia.

Henry v Henry (1995) 185 CLR 571 considered
Oceanic Sunline Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 cited
Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 490 cited

COUNSEL:

J W Peden for the applicant/defendant
PG Bickford for the respondent/ plaintiff

SOLICITORS:

Tucker Cowen for the applicant/defendant
WHD Lawyers for the respondent/plaintiff

1. The applicant in each of these matters is Stanislaw Waldemar Piatek. He was formerly married to the respondent, Renata Anna Piatek. They were divorced by a Polish court in July 2007. The applicant has applied to a Polish court for orders relating to the matrimonial property.

1. The respondent has commenced two actions in this court. In BS3439/05 the respondent seeks an account of money received by the applicant from the sale of real property which had been held in his name. The pleadings have closed in this matter and disclosure and inspection of documents has commenced. In BS654/07 the respondent seeks declarations that certain property formerly owned by the applicant and which was purchased by another defendant, Magdalena Joanna Siudy, is the subject of a constructive trust in favour of the respondent.

1. On 27 October 2007 Atkinson J granted a stay of both proceedings until 1 February 2008. That stay expired but neither party took any steps until this matter was the subject of a case flow management hearing.

1. The applicant now seeks a further short term stay (three months) on the basis that the Polish divorce proceedings are still in train.

1. In her reasons, Atkinson J said that a critical factor relevant to the decision to be made by this court as to the equitable ownership of the properties in question will be the date to be used to determine the assets of the marriage. At that time the court in Poland had not determined that date. It has done so now. That date is 1 January 2005 and that, I was told, is the date to be used under Polish law as the date for the division of the marital estate.

1. The applicant has applied in Poland, in an application made on 20 December 2007, for the…