Stemcor (A/sia) Pty Ltd v Oceanwave Line SA

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stemcor (A/sia) Pty Ltd v Oceanwave Line SA [2004] FCA 391

Admiralty – practice – subpoena to party overseas

STEMCOR (A/SIA) PTY LTD v OCEANWAVE LINE SA
N 1151 of 2002

ALLSOP J
5 APRIL 2004
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1151 of 2002

BETWEEN:

STEMCOR (A/SIA) PTY LTD
PLAINTIFF

AND:

OCEANWAVE LINE SA
DEFENDANT

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. Leave to issue subpoena to a party in Germany and not in Australia under Order 27 of the Federal Court Rules be declined.

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

N 1151 of 2002

BETWEEN:

STEMCOR (A/SIA) PTY LTD
PLAINTIFF

AND:

OCEANWAVE LINE SA
DEFENDANT

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE:

5 APRIL 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The plaintiffs in matter N1151 of 2002 seek leave under Order 27 of the Federal Court Rules to issue a subpoena for production (as defined in Order 27 rule 1 of the Rules) to a foreign party present in Germany and not present in Australia.

  2. The solicitors for the defendant in matter N 1151 of 2002, Norton White, did not oppose the issue of the subpoena.  There are related matters in the list in relation to other steel shipments on different vessels.  Ebsworth & Ebsworth, the solicitors for the carrier in the these matters did oppose the issue of the subpoenas.  The argument took place in relation to proceedings N 1151 of 2002.  Any reference to the defendant in these reasons is a reference to the defendants in these related proceedings who opposed the issue of the subpoena.

  3. The plaintiffs sue the defendant for damage to galvanised steel coils said to have been sustained on the voyage of the Ocean Breeze 91261 from the port of Yokahama to the port of Sydney.  The voyage commenced in late October 2001.  Thus, the voyage was from northern latitude of 35º in late autumn, through the tropics and across the equator to southern latitude of almost 34º south in late spring.  The problems attending stowage, care and ventilation of such cargo from different temperatures and seasons across the humid tropics are or should be well known.  See for example Sparks, Steel: Carriage by Sea (4th Ed, LLP), pp 257-76.

  4. The plaintiffs apparently wish to obtain records from another vessel which they say will throw relevant light on the evidence in connection with the voyage of the Ocean Breeze 91261 and the lack of care said to have been exhibited by the defendants on the voyage in question.

  5. The plaintiffs refer to s 38(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Order 27 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules and the Convention between the United Kingdom and Germany regarding Legal Proceedings in Civil and Commercial Matters done at London…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stemcor (A/sia) Pty Ltd v Oceanwave Line SA 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
[2004] FCA 391
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stemcor (A/sia) Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Oceanwave Line SA in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking to compel the defendant to produce documents and provide evidence from a witness located in Germany. The dispute centred around a contractual agreement between the parties involving the sale and transport of steel products. Stemcor alleged that Oceanwave Line had breached the contract and sought damages for the alleged breach. The legal issues before the court were whether the court had jurisdiction to issue a subpoena to a non-resident party under Order 27 of the Federal Court Rules and whether such a subpoena should be issued in the circumstances of this case. The court considered the jurisdictional and procedural requirements for issuing a subpoena to a non-resident party and evaluated the circumstances of this case to determine whether it was appropriate to exercise such jurisdiction.

The court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to issue a subpoena to a non-resident party under Order 27 of the Federal Court Rules. The court found that the defendant, being a non-resident, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court and that issuing a subpoena to compel the production of documents and the attendance of a witness in Germany would not be appropriate in these circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any subpoena issued is within the court's jurisdiction and that the issuing of such a subpoena to a non-resident party should be exceptional and in the interests of justice. The court concluded that it was not appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction in this case and declined the application for leave to issue the subpoena.

Accordingly, the court declined the application for leave to issue a subpoena to a party in Germany and not in Australia under Order 27 of the Federal Court Rules. The court's decision highlights the importance of jurisdictional and procedural considerations in cross-border litigation and the need for careful evaluation of the circumstances of each case before exercising such jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to issue subpoena to a party in Germany and not in Australia under Order 27 of the Federal Court Rules be declined.

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

ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.