Reed v Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd - [2010] FCA 618

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Reed v Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd [2010] FCA 618

Citation: Reed v Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd [2010] FCA 618

Parties: ANGUS JOHN LUXMORE REED v SUNLAND WATERFRONT (BVI) LTD and SUNLAND GROUP LIMITED ACN 063 429 532

File number: QUD 114 of 2010

Judge: REEVES J

Date of judgment: 2 June 2010

Legislation: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1)(a), s 25(2)
Federal Court Rules O 52 r 2AA, O 52 r 37(2)

Cases cited: Edwards v Santos Limited [2010] FCA 34

Date of hearing: 2 June 2010

Place: Brisbane

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 14

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr H Carmichael

Solicitor for the Applicant: Freehills

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr S Monks

Solicitor for the Respondents: DLA Phillips Fox

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 114 of 2010

BETWEEN:
ANGUS JOHN LUXMORE REED
Applicant

AND:
SUNLAND WATERFRONT (BVI) LTD
First Respondent

SUNLAND GROUP LIMITED ACN 063 429 532
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

REEVES J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 JUNE 2010

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to O 52 r 37(2) of the Federal Court Rules, the hearing of the application for leave to appeal be heard concurrently with, or immediately before, the hearing of the appeal.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 114 of 2010

BETWEEN:
ANGUS JOHN LUXMORE REED
Applicant

AND:
SUNLAND WATERFRONT (BVI) LTD
First Respondent

SUNLAND GROUP LIMITED ACN 063 429 532
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

REEVES J

DATE:

2 JUNE 2010

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Reed, the applicant, wishes to appeal the decision of Logan J of 31 March 2010 – [2010] FCA 312 – dismissing his application for an anti-suit injunction against Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd and Sunland Group Limited. Henceforth, I will refer to both respondents as “Sunland”. The injunction sought from Logan J was to restrain Sunland from pursuing a civil right claim for compensation arising as an adjunct to certain criminal proceedings that are being pursued against Mr Reed and others by the public prosecution authorities in the Dubai Court of First Instance.
In those proceedings, Mr Reed has been charged with defrauding Sunland, arising out of a project to develop land in the Dubai Waterfront development. If that prosecution is successful against Mr Reed, under the law in the United Arab Emirates, Sunland has a right to pursue this civil claim for compensation against Mr Reed. Mr Reed is presently in Australia and, according to what Logan J was told, he does not presently intend to return to Dubai. As well as pursuing this civil right claim for compensation in Dubai, Sunland has commenced proceedings in this Court claiming damages against Mr Reed…

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 Reed v Sunland Waterfront (BVI) 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: [2010] FCA 618
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Angus John Luxmore Reed, the applicant, sought an anti-suit injunction against Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd and Sunland Group Limited to prevent them from pursuing a civil claim for compensation in Dubai, which arose as an adjunct to criminal proceedings against him in the Dubai Court of First Instance. Sunland had also commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia seeking damages from Mr Reed under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or for the tort of deceit. Mr Reed sought leave to appeal the decision of Logan J dismissing his application for an anti-suit injunction against Sunland. The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Reed's application for leave to appeal should be heard concurrently with, or immediately before, the hearing of the appeal and whether there were grounds justifying a departure from the prima facie position that applications for leave to appeal are to be heard and determined by a single judge. Reeves J considered the application for leave to appeal was not straightforward and would likely involve a close examination of the substantive errors Mr Reed alleged were present in Logan J's decision. The dismissal of Mr Reed's application for an anti-suit injunction effectively marked the final determination of this aspect of these proceedings and had important and final consequences for Mr Reed. If there was any validity in Mr Reed's appeal, there was an urgency that it be determined before the Dubai proceedings were concluded. Reeves J proposed to make the orders sought, pursuant to O 52 r 37(2) of the Federal Court Rules, the hearing of the applicant's application for leave to appeal is to be heard concurrently with or immediately before the hearing of the appeal.

Orders