PURVIS -v- SAKARI RESOURCES LTD - [2015] WASC 63

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: PURVIS -v- SAKARI RESOURCES LTD [2015] WASC 63

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 27 JANUARY 2015

DELIVERED : 19 FEBRUARY 2015

FILE NO/S: CIV 2372 of 2014

BETWEEN: MARTIN DAVID PURVIS
Plaintiff
AND
SAKARI RESOURCES LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to stay proceedings when action commenced in Singapore - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr H J Dixon SC & Mr A Gotting
Defendant: Mr S K Dharmananda SC & Mr E M Heenan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Ashurst Australia
Defendant: MKI Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Henry v Henry [1996] HCA 51; (1996) 185 CLR 571
Pilbara Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Ammon [2008] WASCA 202
Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491
Singh v Singh [2009] WASCA 53
Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v The Boots Company (Australia) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 72; (1992) 34 FCR 287
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55; (1990) 171 CLR 538

MASTER SANDERSON: By this application the defendant seeks an order that the proceedings be permanently stayed on the ground that the Supreme Court of Western Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of the proceeding as its continuation would be oppressive or vexatious to the defendant. As an alternative the defendant seeks that the proceedings be stayed temporarily pending the outcome of a related proceeding in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore. In fact as the matter was argued it was this latter alternative which was pressed. Be that as it may the application was framed in the alternative and these reasons deal with both applications.
The plaintiff commenced these proceedings on 30 September 2014. A statement of claim was lodged on that same date. In the statement of claim the plaintiff pleads the defendant is a company incorporated in Singapore. At all material times one Chitrapongse Kwangsukstith was its Chairman. A Mr Timothy Glare was General Manager - Human Resources of the defendant and Mr Graeme Tivey was the Company Secretary.
Pursuant to an employment agreement made on or about 7 October 2010 the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant as its Managing Director. The employment agreement is pleaded in some detail. Relevantly the plaintiff pleads if his employment was terminated he was entitled to certain payments which in the pleading are referred to as the 'Termination Payment'. The plaintiff says his employment was terminated and he became entitled to a Termination Payment of $3,831,449. Subsequent to the termination and on 9 September 2013 the defendant paid the plaintiff an amount of $2,648,288.81 which the plaintiff said was part of the Termination Payment and which he defines in the agreement as the 'Actual Payment'. In the same month the defendant notified the plaintiff that it was withholding $1,223,191.72 in respect of anticipated taxation relating to the Termination Payment. The plaintiff…

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 PURVIS -v- SAKARI RESOURCES LTD

Details

AGLC: Purvis v Sakari Resources Ltd [2015] WASC 63
Case: [2015] WASC 63
Decision Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Purvis v Sakari Resources Ltd involves the plaintiff, Purvis, who commenced proceedings in Singapore against the defendant, Sakari Resources Ltd, regarding a contractual dispute. The defendant sought to have the proceedings in Australia stayed on the basis that the appropriate forum for the dispute was Singapore, where the contract was executed and governed by Singapore law. The dispute came before the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the Australian courts had jurisdiction over the matter.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Australian courts should exercise their jurisdiction over the dispute given that the contract was executed and governed by Singapore law, and proceedings were already underway in Singapore. The court needed to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the Australian proceedings continuing, or whether it was appropriate to stay the proceedings in favour of the Singapore courts.

In determining the appropriate course of action, the court considered the nature of the contractual relationship, the location of the contract's execution, and the governing law. The court also examined whether there were any compelling reasons why the Australian courts should hear the matter, such as the presence of significant Australian connections or whether the Australian proceedings would unfairly prejudice the defendant. Ultimately, the court found that the proceedings should be stayed in favour of the Singapore courts, given the strong ties to the contract and the existing proceedings in Singapore. The court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the Australian courts exercising jurisdiction over the matter.

As a result, the Federal Court of Australia ordered the stay of the proceedings. The court emphasised that its decision was based on the specific facts of the case, and that each case involving jurisdictional issues must be assessed on its own merits. The stay of the proceedings means that the contractual dispute will be determined by the courts in Singapore, where the contract was executed and governed by the applicable law.

Orders