Legal Research
Cases
Schnabel v Lui

Schnabel v Lui

Case [2002] NSWSC 15 1 February 2002

Foreign Judgments

Res Judicata

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Conflict of Laws

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: PETER R SCHNABEL, PREMIER RIDES INC., STEVEN MARBLE & CATALYST ENTERTAINMENT INC. v KEVIN YUNG LUI, FROYER HOLDINGS DEVELOPMENT & TRADING COMPANY, FROYER HOLDINGS (ASIA) LIMITED, FROYER HOLDINGS USA INC & FSN TOP SECRET PRODUCTIONS INC. [2002] NSWSC 15

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Commercial List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 50017/2001

HEARING DATE(S): 25 July 2001, 20, 21 & 22 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 February 2002

PARTIES :

Peter R Schnabel, Premier Rides Inc., Steven Marble, Catalyst Entertainment Inc. (Plaintiffs)
Kevin Yung Lui (First Defendant)
Froyer Holdings development & Trading Company (Second Defendant)
Froyer Holdings (Asia) Limited (Third Defendant)
Froyer Holdings USA Inc. (Fourth Defendant)
FSN Top Secret Productions Inc. (Fifth Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Bergin J

COUNSEL : F Kunc (Plaintiffs)
S Epstein SC (First Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Deacons Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Frank Low Yeung & Co (First Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: [Foreign Judgments] Judgment obtained in the United Stated District Court, Central District of California - Sanctions imposed by US Court "striking" defence and dismissing counterclaim "with prejudice" - Trial on damages - Damages awarded including multiple (quadruple) penal or exemplary damages - Whether the judgment is final and conclusive - Whether the award of multiple damages was a penalty - Whether penalty severable.

LEGISLATION CITED: Foreign Judgments Act 1973

CASES CITED: Abingdon Rural District Council v O'Gorman [1968] 3 All ER 79
Ainslie v Ainslie (1927) 39 CLR 381; (1926) 26 SR (NSW) 567
Alcatel Australia Ltd v Scarcella (1998) 44 NSWLR 349
Angel v Bullington 330 US 183
Armour v Bate (1891) 2 QB 233
Attorney-General (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 86; (1988) 165 CLR 30
Attorney-General (UK) v Wellington Newspapers Ltd (1988) 1 NZLR 129
Bank of Bermuda Ltd v Stutz (1965) 2 OR 121
Boyle v Victoria Yukon Trading Company (1902) 9 BCR 213
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] 1 AC 853
Clough & Rogers v Frog (1974) 48 ALJR 481
Cohen v McWilliam (1995) 38 NSWLR 476
Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700
Damberg v Damberg [2001] NSWCA 87
Desert Sun Loan Corp v Hill [1996] 2 All ER 847
DSV Silo-und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Sennar (Owners) [1985] 2 All ER 104, [1985] 1 WLR 490
Evans v Bartlam (1937) AC 473
Federated Department Stores, Inc v Moitie 452 US 394
Four Embarcadero Centre Venture et al v Kalen et al 65 OR (2d) 551
Four Embarcadero Centre Venture et al. v Mr Greenjeans Corp. et al. (1988) 64 OR (2d) 746
Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1
Haigh v Haigh (1885) 31 Ch D 478
Huntington v Attrill [1893] AC 150
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (2000) 50 NSWLR 640
Jones v Jones (1889) 22 QBD 425
Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1
Linprint Pty Ltd v Hexham Textiles Pty Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 508
Minkler and Kirschbaum v Sheppard (1991) 60 BCLR (2d) 360
Morguard Investments Ltd v de Savoye (1990) 52 BCLR (2d) 160
Nouvion…

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 Schnabel v Lui

Details

AGLC: Schnabel v Lui [2002] NSWSC 15
Case: [2002] NSWSC 15
Decision Date: 1 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Schnabel v Lui case involved the plaintiff, Schnabel, seeking to enforce a judgment obtained in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The dispute centred on the enforceability of a US court judgment, which had imposed sanctions by striking the defence and dismissing the counterclaim with prejudice, followed by a trial on damages that resulted in an award that included multiple, or quadruple, penal or exemplary damages. The court had to determine whether the judgment was final and conclusive, if the award of multiple damages constituted a penalty, and whether any penalty could be severed from the judgment.

The primary legal issues before the court were the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment in Australia, the nature of the sanctions imposed by the US court, and the enforceability of the multiple damages awarded. Specifically, the court had to assess if the judgment was conclusive and final, and whether the multiple damages awarded were penalties that could be distinguished from the main judgment.

The court held that the US judgment was final and conclusive in Australia, as it was properly obtained by a court of competent jurisdiction and was not obtained through fraud. The court also determined that the award of multiple damages was not a penalty but a form of compensatory damages intended to compensate for the plaintiff's loss. As a result, the court found that the multiple damages were not severable from the main judgment. Consequently, the entire judgment, including the multiple damages, was enforceable in Australia.

The court ordered that the US judgment, including the award of multiple damages, be recognised and enforced in accordance with the relevant Australian laws governing foreign judgments. This decision reinforced the principle that foreign judgments are generally enforceable in Australia, provided they meet the criteria of being final, conclusive, and obtained through fair means.

Orders