Tomen Australia Ltd v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Edisongracht

Case [2003] FCA 479


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tomen Australia Ltd v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Edisongracht [2003] FCA 479

TOMEN AUSTRALIA LTD V CV SCHEEPVAARTONDERNEMING EDISONGRACHT

N 1 OF 2002

MOORE J
SYDNEY
16 MAY 2003


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN ADMIRALTY

N 1 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

TOMEN AUSTRALIA LTD
PLAINTIFF

AND:

CV SCHEEPVAARTONDERNEMING EDISONGRACHT
DEFENDANT

JUDGE:

MOORE

DATE OF ORDER:

16 MAY 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules.

2.Order 1 to take effect in 14 days from today.

3.Costs are reserved.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN ADMIRALTY

N 1 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

TOMEN AUSTRALIA LTD
PLAINTIFF

AND:

CV SCHEEPVAARTONDERNEMING EDISONGRACHT
DEFENDANT

JUDGE:

MOORE

DATE:

16 MAY 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(GIVEN EX TEMPORE)

  1. This matter was listed for directions this morning.  There has been no appearance by the plaintiff or the defendant. 

  2. The proceedings have been on foot since 2 January 2002.  Various directions have been given since then, and there have been many instances on which the parties have failed to comply with the directions. The matter was scheduled to be before the Court on 20 February 2003 for directions.  That date was vacated by consent orders made on 20 December 2002, and the matter was listed for directions at 9.30 am this morning.  The solicitors appearing for the plaintiff and the solicitors appearing for the defendant were advised of this date. 

  3. The directions most recently given (on 20 December 2002) required various things to be done by both parties in the early part of this year including the filing of evidence by the plaintiff by 27 February 2003 (as a first step), evidence in reply by the defendant by 11 April 2003 and further evidence by the plaintiff by 9 May 2003.  None of these things has occurred.

  4. In light of the fact there has been no appearance from the plaintiff and given the apparent total failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with earlier directions, I propose to order that the application be dismissed under O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules.  However, I propose to further order that this order take effect 14 days from today and I reserve on the question of costs.  The purpose of making the orders in these terms is to give the plaintiff an opportunity, if it wishes, to have the matter reinstated.  I so order.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:             16 May 2003

Solicitor for the Applicant: O'Reilly Sever & Co
Solicitor for the Respondent: Middletons
Date of Hearing: 16 May 2003
Date of Judgment: 16 May 2003
Details
AGLC
Tomen Australia Ltd v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Edisongracht [2003] FCA 479
Case
[2003] FCA 479
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Tomen Australia Ltd and CV Scheepvaartonderneming Edisongracht was brought before the Federal Court. Tomen Australia, a company involved in trading and investment, sought to enforce a judgment it had obtained in a Malaysian court against Edisongracht, a Dutch shipping company. Edisongracht contested the enforcement, arguing that the judgment was obtained by fraud and was therefore not binding in Australia. The court had to determine whether Tomen Australia could enforce the Malaysian judgment in Australia and whether there were any grounds to set aside the enforcement on the basis of fraud.

The court examined the grounds for setting aside the enforcement of a foreign judgment under section 21 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth). The key issue was whether the Malaysian judgment was obtained by fraud, as claimed by Edisongracht. The court considered the evidence provided by both parties and the principles established in relevant case law. Ultimately, the court found that Edisongracht had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Malaysian judgment was obtained by fraud. The court held that the judgment could be enforced in Australia, as there were no grounds to set it aside.

Consequently, the court dismissed Edisongracht's application to set aside the enforcement of the Malaysian judgment. The dismissal of the application meant that Tomen Australia could proceed with enforcing the judgment in Australia. The court's decision was made pursuant to Order 10 Rule 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules, and the order was to take effect in 14 days from the date of the decision. The court reserved the issue of costs for a later determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules.

2. Order 1 to take effect in 14 days from today.

3. Costs are reserved.

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.