Protec Pacific Pty Ltd v Steuler Industriewerke GmbH

Protec Pacific Pty Ltd sought a contribution from Steuler Industriewerke GmbH following a settlement of an earlier proceeding. The plaintiff had obtained leave to file and serve a notice of contribution, but failed to do so. Instead, the plaintiff commenced a new proceeding, but did not serve the writ on the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently entered into a deed of settlement with the defendant in the earlier proceeding, which was conditional upon the plaintiff being granted leave to serve the writ on the defendant in the present proceeding. The plaintiff then applied for an extension of time to serve the writ, which the defendant opposed. The defendant also sought a stay or order dismissing the proceeding on the basis that the plaintiff had submitted to the jurisdiction or otherwise waived its objection to the court's jurisdiction.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to serve the writ should be granted, and whether the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction or otherwise waived its objection to the court's jurisdiction. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, including rules 5.12, 23.01, and 23.02. The court found that the plaintiff had not shown good reason for the exercise of its discretion to extend time, and that the balance of prejudice favoured the defendant. The court also found that the defendant had not submitted to the jurisdiction or otherwise waived its objection to the court's jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to serve the writ, and granted the defendant's cross-application for a stay or order dismissing the proceeding. The court found that the plaintiff's delay in serving the writ was unreasonable, and that the defendant had not submitted to the jurisdiction or otherwise waived its objection to the court's jurisdiction. The court held that the defendant's objection to the court's jurisdiction was not waived, and that the proceeding should be stayed or dismissed. The court did not make any orders as to costs.