United Rural Enterprises v Lopmand

CITATION: United Rural Enterprises v Lopmand [2003] NSWSC 269

HEARING DATE(S): 28 February 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 February 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J

DECISION: Stay granted

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - stay - no question of principle

PARTIES :
United Rural Enterprises Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Lopmand Pty Limited (First Defendant)
Tracey John Lake (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4039/99

COUNSEL: M Cashion SC; J White (Plaintiff)
B DeBuse (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Kemp Strang (Plaintiff)
McCooe Raves & Poole (Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EQUITY LIST

CAMPBELL J

FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2003

4039/99 UNITED RURAL ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED v LOPMAND PTY LIMITED & ORS

JUDGMENT – Ex tempore

1 HIS HONOUR: The first and second defendants apply for a stay of the judgment contained in order 1 of the orders which I have made today. Counsel for those defendants informs me that the defendants propose to appeal against the portion of my judgment which refused a winding up of Painten on the just and equitable ground. It is possible that the appeal might also extend somewhat wider. Counsel is uncertain about the precise ambit of the appeal because it was only in the course of hearing this morning that counsel for United Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd, on behalf of his client, elected to have United Rural Enterprises become a registered member of Painten, by requiring execution of a transfer of the Lopmand Share in Painten. That election affected the terms of Orders 4 and 5.

2 The judgment sum is one which is secured by equitable mortgage, referred to in paragraph 3 of the orders. While there is no precise valuation evidence, it is clear enough from evidence given at the trial that the Lopmand Share in Painten is an asset of some significant value.

3 If the winding up order had been made, its effect would have been to make that value available to the defendants, so that they could apply it in satisfaction of, or partial satisfaction of, the judgment debt. Hence, the first and second defendants submit, it would not be appropriate for execution of the judgment to take place until the Court of Appeal had decided whether I was right to refuse to wind up Painten.

4 The first and second defendants proffer to the court an undertaking to diligently pursue and prosecute any appeal.

5 When there is some unclarity about the scope of the proposed appeal, and when there is no draft Notice of Appeal available, it would not be appropriate to grant a stay which lasted all the time up to the determination of any appeal. A judge other than me should decide the prospects of success of the appeal, so far as such prospects are relevant to the grant of a stay. It seems to me that the appropriate course is to allow a stay until Tuesday 1 April 2003. Given that the Court of Appeal usually hears motions on a Monday, this should allow time for an appeal to be properly instituted, and for the Court of Appeal to decide the appropriateness of any further stay.

6 I order that execution of the judgment contained in paragraph 1 of the orders made earlier today, be stayed to and including 1 April 2003.

**********

Last Modified: 05/15/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Rural Enterprises v Lopmand was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs, United Rural Enterprises, sought to prevent the defendants, Lopmand, from pursuing legal action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute centred around a contractual agreement where the defendants were prevented from suing in any court other than the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were required to adhere to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in their agreement.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether to grant the plaintiffs' application for a stay of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The court was tasked with determining the enforceability of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract, considering whether such clauses could be enforced in Australian courts and the appropriate circumstances for granting a stay. Additionally, the court had to assess if there were exceptional circumstances that would warrant departing from the contractual terms.

The court found that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was enforceable and should be upheld as per the contractual terms. It held that such clauses are generally binding in Australian courts unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant a departure. The court did not find any such exceptional circumstances in this case and thus granted the application for a stay. The court reasoned that the defendants should be bound by the contractual agreement unless there was a compelling reason to deviate from it, which was not present in this instance.

The Federal Court of Australia ordered that the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia be stayed. The defendants were directed to pursue their claims in the Federal Court in accordance with the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract. The court emphasised the importance of contractual agreements and the need for parties to adhere to the terms unless there are exceptional reasons to do otherwise.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	United Rural Enterprises v Lopmand [2003] NSWSC 269
HEARING DATE(S):	28 February 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:	28 February 2003
JURISDICTION:	Equity
JUDGMENT OF:	Campbell J
DECISION:	Stay granted
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - stay - no question of principle
PARTIES :	United Rural Enterprises Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Lopmand Pty Limited (First Defendant) Tracey John Lake (Second Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 4039/99
COUNSEL:	M Cashion SC; J White (Plaintiff) B DeBuse (Defendants)
SOLICITORS:	Kemp Strang (Plaintiff) McCooe Raves & Poole (Defendants)