Thomas v Star Maid International Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[1999] FCA 911
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Thomas, initiated proceedings against Star Maid International Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred around allegations of breach of contract and associated damages following the sale of a franchise. Thomas claimed that the defendant had failed to provide essential training and support, which he argued led to significant financial losses. Star Maid International sought a stay of the proceedings pending the resolution of related arbitration proceedings in the United Kingdom.

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.