S A Cryonic Medical - [2002] VSC 338

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 6065 of 2002

In the Matter of:

S.A. CRYONIC MEDICAL

Applicant

---

JUDGE:	Nettle J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	9, 13 August 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 August 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In the Matter of S.A. Cryonic Medical
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 338

---

Practice and procedure – Registration of foreign judgments – Registration in State in which it is not intended to enforce judgment – Foreign Judgments Act 1991, s. 6.

Statutory interpretation – intent of legislation – Foreign Judgments Act 1991; Service and Execution of Process Act 1992

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M. MacKinnon	Michael Bula

HIS HONOUR:

This is an appeal from the dismissal by a Master of an application under s. 6 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) to register a money judgment of the Tribunal de Commerce. The judgment, which is for the sum of 158,000 French francs, was given on 13 October 2000 against an Australian Company, Medicold Pty Ltd, Australian Company No. 084 681 185, and according to the material filed in support of the application, that company has its usual place of business at 60 Trappers Way, Avalon, in New South Wales. It appears, however, that the company does not carry on business or have any assets in Victoria.

Section 6 of the Foreign Judgments Act provides, so far as is relevant, for registration of foreign judgments as follows:

“(1)A judgment creditor under a judgment to which this Part applies may apply to the appropriate court at any time within 6 years after:
(a)the date of the judgment; or
(b)where there have been proceedings by way of appeal against the judgment, the date of the last judgment in those proceedings;
to have the judgment registered in the court.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the appropriate court is:
(a)if the judgment is a money judgment and was given in proceedings in which a matter for determination arises under the Commerce Act 1986 of New Zealand (other than proceedings in which a matter for determination arises under section 36A, 98H or 99A of that Act)—the Federal Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; or
(b)if the judgment is not a money judgment and was given in such proceedings—the Federal Court of Australia; or
(c)in any other case—the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

(3)Subject to This Act and to proof of the matters prescribed by the applicable Rules of Court, if an application is made under this section, the Supreme Court of a State or Territory or the Federal Court of Australia is to order the judgment to be registered.
…
(7)Subject to sections 7 and 14:
(a)a registered judgment has, for the purposes of enforcement, the same force and effect; and
(b)proceedings may be taken on a registered judgment; and
(c)the amount for which a judgment

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 S A Cryonic Medical

Details

AGLC: S A Cryonic Medical [2002] VSC 338
Case: [2002] VSC 338
Decision Date: 22 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved S A Cryonic Medical, which sought to register a judgment obtained from the New York Supreme Court in Australia. The New York judgment was for the recovery of a debt. However, the registration was sought in a state where the judgment was not intended to be enforced. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether such a registration was permissible under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 allowed for the registration of foreign judgments in states where enforcement was not intended. The court had to interpret the intent of the legislation and consider whether the registration provisions in the Act were limited to states where enforcement would take place. The court also examined the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 to determine if it provided any guidance on the registration of foreign judgments in such circumstances.

The court concluded that the Act's provisions for registration of foreign judgments were not intended to be limited to states where enforcement would occur. It found that the Act's language did not restrict registration to states where enforcement was planned, and thus, the registration of the New York judgment was permissible. The court emphasised the importance of the intent behind the legislation and how it aligned with the broader purpose of facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia.

The court ordered that the New York judgment could be registered in the state under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991. The decision highlighted the need for a flexible interpretation of the Act to accommodate the practicalities of international litigation and the recognition of foreign judgments.

Orders