Quinta Radisson Pty Ltd v Trinkor Pty Ltd - [2005] VSC 259

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 5266 of 2005

QUINTA RADDISON LTD	Plaintiff
v
TRINKOR PTY LTD and ANDREW NEIL POWER	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 June 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 June 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Quinta Raddison Ltd v Trinkor Pty Ltd & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 259

---

PRACTICE COURT – Transfer of proceeding – s.5(2)(b)(iii) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S. Minahan	Cornwall Stodart
For the Defendants	Mr C.R. Northrop	Eggleston Mitchell

-------------------------------------

HIS HONOUR:

This is a summons for a transfer of proceeding from this Court to the Supreme Court of Western Australia pursuant to s.5(2)(b)(iii) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987. The summons was filed on 11 May 2005. The proceeding is a passing-off action.

The summons calls upon sub-paragraph (iii) of s.5(2)(b), namely, that it is in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by another Supreme Court than this Court. There is no present interstate proceeding and no jurisdictional obstacle to the matter being heard in Victoria, where presently it is vested, but rather, the application propounds that it is in the interests of justice, as contemplated by BHP Billiton v Schultz & Anor[1], that the appropriate forum or the natural forum or the jurisdiction having the real and most substantial connection is that of Western Australia rather than of Victoria.
[1][2004] HCA 61 at [14] per Gleeson CJ and McHugh and Heydon JJ.

The proceedings were commenced by writ filed in this Court on 30 March 2005. The statement of claim was amended by an amended statement of claim filed 8 June 2005.

A conditional appearance was filed on behalf of the defendants on 27 April 2005.

The amended statement of claim, in relevant part, pleads that the plaintiff is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the United Kingdom. Pausing there, that is a central fact in the adjudication of this summons - that the plaintiff is a corporation not incorporated in Victoria or in Australia but in the Untied Kingdom. It is engaged in the business of supplying engineering equipment and parts to heavy industry and has been engaged in that business in Australia since 1984. The second relevant fact is that the business has been conducted Australia-wide, not concentrated in Victoria, although, in circumstances to which I shall come, there is an agent of the plaintiff in Victoria. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is the possessor of a reputation in the brand and trademark Quinta Raddison within Australia as well as internationally, in the provision of general engineering equipment.

The amended statement of claim proceeds that between January 1987 and June 1987 the plaintiff appointed the second defendant as the Australian agent for the plaintiff in the marketing of the plaintiff’s products and services, which is described as “the appointment”; that in consideration…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Quinta Radisson Pty Ltd v Trinkor Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] VSC 259
Decision Date: 27 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quinta Radisson Pty Ltd brought an action against Trinkor Pty Ltd in the County Court of Victoria, seeking damages for breach of contract. The defendants subsequently applied to have the matter transferred to the Federal Court of Australia on the basis of the cross-vesting provisions in the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987. The primary legal issue before the County Court was whether the case met the criteria for transfer under section 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Act. This section allows for the transfer of proceedings where the amount in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the County Court but does not exceed the limits of the Federal Court.

The court considered whether the dispute involved a matter that was an ancillary or consequential part of a proceeding that was already before the Federal Court. The defendants argued that the present dispute was directly connected to a proceeding involving similar contractual obligations that was currently before the Federal Court. The court held that the dispute in the County Court was not merely ancillary or consequential to the Federal Court proceeding but rather an independent and distinct matter. Consequently, the court found that the criteria for transfer under section 5(2)(b)(iii) were not satisfied. The application for transfer was therefore dismissed.

The court's decision hinged on its interpretation of the phrase "ancillary or consequential" within the statutory context. The court concluded that the dispute in question did not fall within the intended scope of the provision, and thus remained within the jurisdiction of the County Court. The case underscored the importance of precise statutory interpretation in determining the appropriate forum for litigation. The County Court retained jurisdiction over the matter, and the case proceeded accordingly.

Orders