FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rock Solid Surfaces Pty Ltd v Biesse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 42
Citation: Rock Solid Surfaces Pty Ltd v Biesse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 42 Parties: ROCK SOLID SURFACES PTY LIMITED (ACN 120 652 977) v BIESSE GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 098 130 191) and STEPHEN YVON HOAREAU; BIESSE GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 098 130 191) and STEPHEN YVON HOAREAU; ZIPOR EQUIPAMENTOS E TECNOLOGIA INDUSTRIAL SA and ROCK SOLID SURFACES PTY LIMITED (ACN 120 652 977) File number: WAD 217 of 2010 Judge: GILMOUR J Date of judgment: 2 February 2011 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – service of process – leave to serve outside jurisdiction – O 8 r 3 Federal Court Rules – whether prima facie case for relief Legislation: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), s 14(5) s 14(6)(a)
Federal Court Rules Order 8ACases cited: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v April International Marketing Services Australia Pty Ltd (No 6) (2010) 270 ALR 504
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Yellow Page Marketing BV [2010] FCA 1218
Bray v F Hoffman- La Roche Ltd (2002) 118 FCR 1
Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche (2003) 130 FCR 317Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd v Australian Securities & Investments Commission (1999) 95 FCR 42
Ho v Akai(in liq) (2006) 24 ACLC 1526
Howard v National Bank of NZLimited (2002) 121 FCR 366
Paper Products Pty Ltd v Tomlinsons (Rochdale) Ltd (No 2) (1993) 44 FCR 485Date of hearing: 17 December 2010 Place: Perth Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 37 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms C Donald Counsel for the First and Second Cross-Claimants (First and Second Respondents): Mr J Emmett Solicitor for the First and Second Cross-Claimants (First and Second Respondents): Horton Rhodes Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 217 of 2010
BETWEEN: ROCK SOLID SURFACES PTY LIMITED (ACN 120 652 977)
ApplicantAND: BIESSE GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
(ACN 098 130 191)
First RespondentSTEPHEN YVON HOAREAU
Second RespondentBIESSE GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
(ACN 098 130 191)
First Cross-ClaimantSTEPHEN YVON HOAREAU
Second Cross-ClaimantZIPOR EQUIPAMENTOS E TECNOLOGIA
INDUSTRIAL SA
First Cross-RespondentROCK SOLID SURFACES PTY LIMITED (ACN 120 652 977)
Second Cross-Respondent
JUDGE:
GILMOUR J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 DECEMBER 2010
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be granted to the first and second cross-claimants to serve the first cross-respondent with the cross-claim filed on 12 November 2010 in accordance with the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters and Order 8A of the Federal Court Rules.
2.Costs be in the cause.
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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Rock Solid Surfaces Pty Ltd v Biesse Group (Australia) Pty L... 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] FCA 42
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the cross-claimants had made out a prima facie case for the relief sought under Order 8 rule 3 of the Federal Court Rules. This required the court to consider the merits of the cross-claim, including whether the cross-claimants had a reasonable prospect of succeeding on the merits and whether there were compelling circumstances that warranted serving the cross-claim outside the jurisdiction. The court also considered whether serving the cross-claim outside the jurisdiction would be consistent with the principles of justice and the Convention.
The court found that the cross-claimants had made out a prima facie case for the relief sought. The court was satisfied that the cross-claimants had a reasonable prospect of succeeding on the merits and that there were compelling circumstances that warranted serving the cross-claim outside the jurisdiction. The court also found that serving the cross-claim outside the jurisdiction would be consistent with the principles of justice and the Convention. The court noted that the first cross-respondent had previously consented to service of process in Australia and that it was appropriate to allow the cross-claimants to serve the cross-claim in Italy, where the first cross-respondent's principal place of business is located.
The court granted leave to the cross-claimants to serve the cross-claim on the first cross-respondent in accordance with the Convention and Order 8A of the Federal Court Rules. The court also ordered that costs be in the cause. This decision provides guidance on the factors that the court will consider when deciding whether to grant leave to serve a cross-claim outside the jurisdiction. It highlights the importance of considering the merits of the cross-claim, the interests of justice, and the principles of the Convention when making this decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave be granted to the first and second cross-claimants to serve the first cross-respondent with the cross-claim filed on 12 November 2010 in accordance with the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters and Order 8A of the Federal Court Rules.
2. Costs be in the cause.
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.