FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Limited v Bank of China [2012] FCA 757
Citation: Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Limited v Bank of China [2012] FCA 757 Parties: STRATEGIC FINANCIAL AND PROJECT SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 110 336 966 and ENERGREEN WIND SYSTEMS PTY LTD ACN 100 729 842 v BANK OF CHINA LIMITED ARBN 002 979 955 and COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA ACN 123 123 124 File number: NSD 1900 of 2008 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 13 July 2012 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – non-compliance with self-executing orders for dismissal of proceedings Cases cited: Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Limited v Bank of China [2012] FCA 701 Date of hearing: 13 July 2012 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Solicitor for the Applicants: Mr A Murray of Colin Biggers & Paisley Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr BA Coles QC with Mr S Golledge Solicitor for the First Respondent: Freehills Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Ms B Edel of Henry Davis York
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1900 of 2008
BETWEEN: STRATEGIC FINANCIAL AND PROJECT SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 110 336 966
First ApplicantENERGREEN WIND SYSTEMS PTY LTD ACN 100 729 842
Second ApplicantAND: BANK OF CHINA LIMITED ARBN 002 979 955
First RespondentCOMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA ACN 123 123 124
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
ROBERTSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 JULY 2012
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceeding against the first respondent be dismissed.
2.The applicants pay the first respondent’s costs.
3.The proceeding against the second respondent be dismissed.
4.The applicants pay the second respondent’s costs.
5.The hearing listed to commence on 27 August 2012 for fifteen days be vacated.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rules 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1900 of 2008
BETWEEN: STRATEGIC FINANCIAL AND PROJECT SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 110 336 966
First ApplicantENERGREEN WIND SYSTEMS PTY LTD ACN 100 729 842
Second ApplicantAND: BANK OF CHINA LIMITED ARBN 002 979 955
First RespondentCOMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA ACN 123 123 124
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
ROBERTSON J
DATE:
13 JULY 2012
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These reasons should be read with the reasons I gave for making self-executing orders on 29 June 2012: Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Limited v Bank of China [2012] FCA 701.
When the matter came on at 9.30 am this morning I was informed by Mr Murray, the legal representative of the applicants, that the applicants had not complied with the orders I made on 30 April 2012 and 1 May 2012 that the applicants give further security for the respondents’ costs by 21 May 2012, and therefore, in accordance with the orders I made on 29 June 2012, the proceedings against the first respondent and against the second respondent were to be dismissed with costs. I therefore made those orders.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson. Associate:
Dated: 13 July 2012
- AGLC
- Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Limited v Bank of China [2012] FCA 757
- Case
- [2012] FCA 757
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Limited’s failure to comply with specific procedural orders warranted the dismissal of the proceeding, and if so, whether the dismissal should be with costs to the respondents. The respondents argued that the non-compliance with the court’s orders was a clear breach of the procedural rules, and as such, warranted the dismissal of the proceeding.
The court found that Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Limited had indeed failed to adhere to the self-executing orders, which were essential for the proper administration of justice. The non-compliance was deemed to be a serious matter that undermined the court’s authority and the integrity of the judicial process. Given the persistent disregard for the court’s directives, the court determined that the proceeding must be dismissed. Furthermore, the court held that the applicants should bear the costs of the respondents due to the unjustified continuation of the proceeding. The hearing scheduled for 27 August 2012 was also vacated in light of the dismissal.
The final orders of the court mandated the dismissal of the proceeding against both respondents, required the applicants to pay the costs of the first and second respondents, and vacated the hearing scheduled for 27 August 2012. These orders were made in accordance with the Federal Court Rules 2011, specifically Rule 39.32, which governs the entry of orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The proceeding against the first respondent be dismissed.
2. The applicants pay the first respondent’s costs.
3. The proceeding against the second respondent be dismissed.
4. The applicants pay the second respondent’s costs.
5. The hearing listed to commence on 27 August 2012 for fifteen days be vacated.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rules 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.