Thomas v. Star Maid International Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 911
Arbitration
ARBITRATION - submission to arbitration as ground for stay of proceedings - whether "matter agreed to be referred to arbitration" - whether court satisfied "no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred to arbitration" - risk of multiplicity of proceedings - increased cost - possibility of inconsistent findings.
Commercial Arbitration Act 1982 (Vic) s 53
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53B, 51AA and 75B
Bond Corporation Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 193 at 203-7 referred to
Eaton v Eaton [1950] VLR 233 at 238 referred to
WC Thomas & Sons Pty Ltd v Bunge (Australia) Pty Ltd [1975] VR 801 at 805 referred to
Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd v Transfield Pty Ltd and Another [1998] VSC 103 at pars 148, 158-9, 167-172 referred to
Huddart Parker Ltd v The Ship "Mill Hill" (1950) 81 CLR 502 referred to
Marks v Bochsler & Partners Pty Ltd (unreported, Murphy and Gobbo JJ, Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, 13 March 1992) referred to
Halifax Overseas Freighters Ltd v Rasno Export [1958] 2 Lloyds Rep 146 at 151 referred to
Taunton-Collins v Cromie [1964] 1 WLR 633 at 635 referred to
Tasmanian Pulp & Forest Holdings Ltd v Woodhall Ltd [1971] Tas SR 330 at 345-6 referred to
Hi-Fert Pty Ltd v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc (1998) 159 ALR 142 at 161 referred to
DESMOND FREDERICK THOMAS v STAR MAID INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (ACN 004 889 258)
V 251 of 1999
WEINBERG J
25 JUNE 1999
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 251 OF 1999
BETWEEN: DESMOND FREDERICK THOMAS Applicant
AND: STAR MAID INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (ACN 004 889 258) First Respondent
GUY RICHARD ALEXANDER GREGG
Second Respondent
NICOLA CURSIO
Third Respondent
#DATE 25:06:1999
JUDGE:
WEINBERG J DATE OF ORDER: 25 JUNE 1999 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for a stay be refused.
2. The motion be dismissed with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 251 OF 1999
BETWEEN: DESMOND FREDERICK THOMAS Applicant
AND: STAR MAID INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (ACN 004 889 258) First Respondent
GUY RICHARD ALEXANDER GREGG
Second Respondent
NICOLA CURSIO
Third Respondent
JUDGE: WEINBERG J DATE: 25 JUNE 1999 PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 There is before the court a motion, notice of which was given on 9 June 1999, in which the respondents to this proceeding seek an order that it be stayed. That order is sought pursuant to s 53 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (Vic), ("the Act"), which relevantly provides as follows:
"(1) If a party to an arbitration agreement commences proceedings in a court against another party to the arbitration agreement in respect of a matter agreed to be referred to arbitration by the agreement, that other party may, subject…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Thomas v Star Maid International Pty 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1999] FCA 911
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether it should grant a stay of the proceedings in favour of the arbitration process overseas. The key legal issue was whether the Australian court should defer to the UK arbitration under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the stay would cause significant injustice to the plaintiff, considering the immediacy of the relief sought and the potential for irreparable harm.
The court found that the application for a stay was not justified. It held that the plaintiff had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the case, and that the arbitration in the UK would not adequately address the issues raised in the Australian proceedings. The court emphasised that the plaintiff's claim for urgent relief was critical, and a stay would result in significant and irreparable harm. Consequently, the application for a stay was refused, and the motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for a stay be refused.
2. The motion be dismissed with costs.
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.