UON Pty Ltd v Hoascar [No 3] - [2021] WASC 17

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   UON PTY LTD -v- HOASCAR [No 3] [2021] WASC 17
CORAM:   ARCHER J
HEARD:   15 JANUARY 2021
DELIVERED          :   22 JANUARY 2021
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3178 of 2016
BETWEEN:   UON PTY LTD
First Plaintiff
LAA INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff
AND
GABRIEL HOASCAR
First Defendant
TARANIS POWER GROUP PTY LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Transfer of proceedings to Federal Court – Overlap in subject matter – Risk of inconsistent findings

Legislation:

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 5(1)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (WA), s 5(1)

Result:

Proceedings to be transferred

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	M L Bennett & T J C Elder
Second Plaintiff	:	M L Bennett & T J C Elder
First Defendant	:	P D C Robinson
Second Defendant	:	P D C Robinson

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Bennett + Co
Second Plaintiff	:	Bennett + Co
First Defendant	:	Williams & Hughes
Second Defendant	:	Williams & Hughes

Cases referred to in decision:

Access Group Australia Pty Ltd v Topper Hydraulic Platforms Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 265
Avwest Aircraft Pty Ltd v Bombardier Inc [No 3] [2020] WASC 436
Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711, 11
BHP Billiton v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400
Cini v Pets Paradise Franchising (SA) Pty Ltd (2008) 102 SASR 177
Commissioner of Taxation v Residence Riverside Proprietary Ltd as Trustee for the D&J Discretionary Trust and as Trustee for the D&J Investment Trust [2013] FCA 720
Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2008] FCA 1283
Roe v Western Australia [2013] WASC 130
Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78
Uon Pty Ltd v Hoascar [2020] WASC 271
Uon Pty Ltd v Hoascar [2020] WASC 271 (S)
Yang v Vuly Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1037 [10]

ARCHER J:

Introduction

In 2016, the plaintiffs issued proceedings alleging that their confidential information was misused by the defendants (Supreme Court Action).
The proceedings were admitted into my commercial and managed cases list in 2018. In 2020, I dealt with an application seeking the release of documents from a confidentiality regime.[1]
[1] Uon Pty Ltd v Hoascar [2020] WASC 271 (Uon Pty Ltd v Hoascar). See also Uon Pty Ltd v Hoascar [2020] WASC 271 (S).
The defendants now seek orders that the proceedings be transferred to the Western Australian registry of the Federal Court of Australia. They rely on s 5(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑Vesting) Act 1987 (WA) (WA Act) or s 5(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) (Commonwealth Act). Relevantly to the defendants' application, the two Acts provide that the Supreme Court must transfer proceedings to the Federal Court if, having regard to the interests of justice, it is more appropriate that they be determined by the Federal Court.
The defendants' submissions rely on the existence of proceedings in the Federal Court[2] (Federal Court Action) which they…

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 UON Pty Ltd v Hoascar [No 3] 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: [2021] WASC 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants sought to have the Supreme Court Action transferred to the Federal Court. The Supreme Court Action concerned an allegation that confidential information was misused in the development of a machine. The Federal Court Action concerned a patent for the machine which the plaintiffs said should not be granted. The Supreme Court Action was commenced before the Federal Court Action and the Supreme Court had heard the parties on an application to vary a confidentiality regime. The defendants submitted that the two sets of proceedings had a significant overlap in subject matter and that, having regard to the interests of justice, it was more appropriate that the Supreme Court Action be transferred to the Federal Court. The plaintiffs opposed the application and submitted that the two sets of proceedings were inter-related but that it was not in the interests of justice that the Supreme Court Action be transferred to the Federal Court. The plaintiffs submitted that it would be preferable if the Federal Court Action was stayed until after the Supreme Court Action was completed. The plaintiffs submitted that if a stay was granted, there would be no risk of inconsistent factual findings and that the Supreme Court judge's detailed knowledge of the matter would provide a cost-effective resolution of these complex matters. I considered the factors in favour of transfer and the factors in favour of refusing to transfer. I did not accept that the plaintiffs' proposal to stay the Federal Court Action was preferable to transferring the Supreme Court Action. I considered that, having regard to the interests of justice, it was more appropriate that the Supreme Court Action be determined by the Federal Court. I would order that the Supreme Court Action be transferred to the Western Australian registry of the Federal Court. I would delay making the order until the outstanding costs issues were resolved.

Orders