Stingray Boats v Denmeade - [2003] FCA 1172

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Stingray Boats v Denmeade [2003] FCA 1172
APPEALS – application pending for special leave - where application for stay to preserve subject matter – where prospects of success a determinative fact
Admiralty Rules
Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681 followed
STINGRAY BOATS (a firm) v PHILIP DENMEADE (The Owner of the 12m Aluminium Ship Identification Number 25230)
No Q 159 of 2002
SPENDER J
BRISBANE
20 OCTOBER 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY IN ADMIRALTY

Q 159 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

STINGRAY BOATS (a firm)
PLAINTIFF

AND:

PHILIP DENMEADE (The Owner of the 12m Aluminium Ship Identification Number 25230)
DEFENDANT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application of the Defendant filed 10 October 2003 for stay of orders made by Spender J on 26 September 2003 is refused.
2.The Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY IN ADMIRALTY

Q 159 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

STINGRAY BOATS (a firm)
PLAINTIFF

AND:

PHILIP DENMEADE (The Owner of the 12m Aluminium Ship Identification Number 25230)
DEFENDANT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE:

20 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 26 September 2003, I ordered that the ship the subject of a maritime claim in respect of its construction by Stingray Boats be sold pursuant to the Admiralty Rules. In respect of that claim, I gave judgment in favour of Stingray Boats for $21,500 on 14 February 2003. The judgment was the subject of an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court, and on 31 March 2003 I granted a stay pending determination of the Full Court of the Federal Court in respect of that judgment.
On 5 September 2003 the Full Court amended the amount of the judgment to $20,500 and otherwise dismissed the appeal with costs. On 6 October, Stingray Boats obtained from the Court certificates of taxation in relation to the orders of the Court of 21 November 2002 and 14 February 2003. These two certificates together represent $19,090.44 in costs payable to Stingray Boats.
In respect of the application for a stay pending special leave to appeal, there appears to be no argument between the parties as to the legal principles to be applied. The leading authority is the judgment of Brennan J, as he then was, in Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681 (“Jennings”).
From his Honour’s judgment, one can distil the following propositions: first, jurisdiction to grant a stay depends on whether the stay is necessary to preserve the subject matter of the litigation. The jurisdiction arises if the application for special leave to appeal would be futile unless a stay was granted. Second, (at p 684) a stay to preserve the subject matter of litigation…

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 Stingray Boats v Denmeade

Details

AGLC: Stingray Boats v Denmeade [2003] FCA 1172
Case: [2003] FCA 1172
Decision Date: 20 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stingray Boats v Denmeade, the plaintiff, Stingray Boats, sought to enforce certain orders made against the defendant, Denmeade, in relation to a dispute over the ownership and sale of a boat. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Sundberg J. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had breached an agreement to sell the boat, and sought enforcement of specific performance and damages.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the orders made by Spender J on 26 September 2003 should be stayed, and whether the defendant should be required to pay the plaintiff’s costs. The defendant argued that the orders should be stayed because the court lacked jurisdiction to make them, and that the orders were therefore void. Additionally, the defendant contested the plaintiff’s claim for costs, arguing that the plaintiff’s conduct during the proceedings warranted a costs order against them.

Sundberg J found that the court did indeed have jurisdiction to make the orders in question, and that the orders were valid. The court held that the defendant's application for a stay of the orders was an abuse of process and refused it. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's conduct was not so egregious as to warrant a costs order against them. Instead, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application of the Defendant filed 10 October 2003 for stay of orders made by Spender J on 26 September 2003 is refused.

2. The Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

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

SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY IN ADMIRALTY	Q 159 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	STINGRAY BOATS (a firm) PLAINTIFF
AND:	PHILIP DENMEADE (The Owner of the 12m Aluminium Ship Identification Number 25230) DEFENDANT
JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 OCTOBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	20 OCTOBER 2003
PLACE:	BRISBANE