Reches Pty Ltd v Tadiran Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MAREVA INJUNCTION – reputable foreign corporation accustomed to paying its debts – whether it is appropriate to restrain such a corporation from removing or depleting its sole asset within Australia in circumstances where the removal or depletion is within the ordinary course of business, where there is nothing to suggest that the corporation is likely to “default” and where the corporation resides, and principally carries on business, in a jurisdiction where enforcement is possible under a reciprocal regime for the registration of judgments – discretionary nature of Mareva relief – relevance of refusal to undertake not to oppose registration of a judgment in a foreign jurisdiction.

SECURITY FOR COSTS – impecuniosity of applicant – relevance of fact that impecuniosity results from conduct on the part of the respondent of which the applicant complains – circumstances in which an order for security for costs will be made against an impecunious corporate applicant.

Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), s 5(1), s 6 (1), s 6 (7)

Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319, applied
Barclay-Johnson v Yuill [1980] 1 WLR 1259, cited
Chartered Bank v Daklouche [1980] 1 All ER 205, cited
Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v Unimarine SA [1979] 1 QB 645, cited
Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc. (1996) 67 FCR 446, considered and explained
Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612, applied
Patrick Stevedores Operations No. 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [1998] HCA 30, cited
Anthony & Sons Pty Ltd v Basilan Lines Inc. (Scott J, Supreme Court of Western Australia, 28 May 1998, unreported), referred to

Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co. Ltd v Triplan Ltd [1973] 1 QB 609, cited
Lynnebry Pty Ltd v Farquhar Enterprises Pty Ltd (1977) 3 ACLR 133, cited
Bell Wholesale Co. Ltd v Gates Export Corp. (1984) 2 FCR 1, cited
Pasdale Pty Ltd v Concrete Constructions (1995) 59 FCR 446, cited
PS Chellaram & Co. v China Ocean Shipping Co. (1991) 65 ALJR 642, cited

RECHES PTY LIMITED v TADIRAN LIMITED
NG 606 of 1996

LEHANE J
SYDNEY
11 JUNE 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 606  of  1996

BETWEEN:

RECHES PTY LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

TADIRAN LIMITED
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LEHANE J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 JUNE 1998

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The applicant’s notice of motion filed on 19 September 1997 is dismissed.

  2. The applicant, within fourteen days after delivery of these reasons, file and serve on the respondent short minutes of the other orders appropriate to give effect to these reasons.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

 NG 606 of 1996

BETWEEN:

RECHES PTY LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

TADIRAN LIMITED
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LEHANE J

DATE:

11 JUNE 1998

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

There are three…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reches Pty Ltd v Tadiran 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
[1998] FCA 666
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Reches Pty Ltd, the applicant, and Tadiran Ltd, the respondent. The dispute concerns a contract between the two companies for the sale of shares in a third party, Elscint Ltd. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought to enforce an arbitration agreement in relation to the sale of shares, arguing that the respondent had breached the contract. The respondent denied the breach and challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the arbitration agreement was valid and binding on the parties, and if so, whether the respondent had breached the contract by failing to transfer the shares as agreed. The court also needed to determine whether the applicant was entitled to an injunction to compel the respondent to transfer the shares, and if the applicant was entitled to any other relief.

The court found that the arbitration agreement was valid and binding on the parties, and that the respondent had breached the contract by failing to transfer the shares as agreed. The court held that the applicant was entitled to an injunction to compel the respondent to transfer the shares, but declined to grant the injunction on the basis that it would be oppressive to the respondent. The court also found that the applicant was not entitled to any other relief. The court dismissed the applicant’s notice of motion and ordered the applicant to file and serve on the respondent short minutes of the other orders appropriate to give effect to these reasons within fourteen days after delivery of these reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The applicant’s notice of motion filed on 19 September 1997 is dismissed.

2.

The applicant, within fourteen days after delivery of these reasons, file and serve on the respondent short minutes of the other orders appropriate to give effect to these reasons.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.