THOMAS & ANOR -v- ACP TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD & ANOR [2000] WASC 4

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 4
Published:	21/01/2000
Case No:	CIV:1804/1999	Heard:	17 NOVEMBER 1999
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	17/11/99
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	GREGOR WILLIAM THOMAS SUPAPAVE CONTRACTING PTY LTD ACP TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD ACP TECHNICAL SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 072 911 874)
Catchwords:	Leave to issue a writ out of jurisdiction Challenge to jurisdiction of the court
Legislation:	Trade Practices Act 1974 s 52
Case References:	Leigh Mardon Pty Ltd v PRC Inc (1993) 44 FCR 88 Aki Pty Ltd v The People's Insurance Co Ltd (1988) CLR 418 Australian Commercial Research & Development Ltd v ANZ McCaughan Merchant Bank Ltd [19889] 3 All ER 65 Bonython v Commonwealth [1951] AC 201 Contender 1 Ltd v LEP International Pty Ltd (1988) 82 ALR 394 DA Technology Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Discreet Logig Inc & Anor, unreported; Fed C of A (Gummow J); 10 March 1994 Diamond v Bank of London & Montreal Ltd [1979] QB 333 Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson [1971] AC 458 FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Ocean Marine Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (1996) 41 NSWLR 117 Freckmann v Pengendar Timur SDN BHD (1989) WAR 62 Gem Plastics v Saltrex Maritime, unreported; SCt of NSW (Rolfe J); 9 June 1995 Green v Australian Industrial Investment Ltd (1989) 90 ALR 500 Hayel Saeed Anam & Co v Eastern Sea Freighters Pty Ltd (1973) 7 SASR 200 Huddart Parker Ltd v The Ship Mill Hill (1950) 81 CLR 502 Lep International Pty Ltd & Anor v Altanttrafic Express Service Inc & Ors (1987) 10 NSWLR 6140 Lewis Construction v Tichauer [1966] VR 341 Lyndsay Edmonds & Associates Pty Ltd v Quest Sales Pty Ltd (1979) 60 FLR 349 Mendelson-Zeller Co Inc v T & C Providores Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 366 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Incorporated v Fay (1988) 62 ALJR 389 Re United Railways of the Havana & Regla Warehouses [1960] 1 Ch 52 Sheldon Pallet Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd v New Zealand Forrest Products Ltd [1975] 1 NSWLR 141 St Pierre v South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd [1936] 1 KB 382 Sydbank v Bannerton Holdings (1996) 68 FCR 539 The Eider [1893] P 119 Victorian Broadcasting Network Ltd v Whitlam (1980) 42 FLR 256 Vitrovice Horni A Hunti Tezirstvo v Korner [1951] AC 869 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : THOMAS & ANOR -v- ACP TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD & ANOR [2000] WASC 4 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 17 NOVEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 17 NOVEMBER 1999 PUBLISHED : 21 JANUARY 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1804 of 1999 BETWEEN : GREGOR WILLIAM THOMAS

First Plaintiff

SUPAPAVE CONTRACTING PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

ACP TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD

First Defendant

ACP TECHNICAL SERVICES…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thomas v ACP Technical Services Ltd 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: [2000] WASC 4
Decision Date: 21 JANUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thomas v ACP Technical Services Ltd involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought leave to issue a writ out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Thomas, sought to bring an action against the defendant, ACP Technical Services Ltd, despite the jurisdictional constraints. The nature of the dispute centred around the validity and scope of the court's jurisdiction to hear a case that seemingly fell outside its territorial limits.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Thomas against ACP Technical Services Ltd. This required the court to consider the applicable jurisdictional principles and whether any exceptions or extensions of jurisdiction could be invoked. The court was tasked with determining if the circumstances of the case warranted an exception to the general rule of in personam jurisdiction, which typically requires the defendant to be present or have sufficient ties to the jurisdiction.

The court examined the relevant jurisdictional principles and found that Thomas had not provided sufficient grounds to justify an extension of the court's jurisdiction. It was held that the defendant, ACP Technical Services Ltd, did not have the necessary connection to the State of Victoria to warrant the court's exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the application for leave to issue a writ out of jurisdiction was dismissed. The court concluded that the jurisdictional requirements were not met, and thus, the application was not successful. The plaintiff's attempt to circumvent the jurisdictional limits was unsuccessful, and the application was dismissed accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.