Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Limited

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from a majority decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The appeal concerned the refusal by a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to set aside the service of process on the appellant outside the jurisdiction, specifically in the United States, and the refusal to grant a stay of proceedings on the grounds of *forum non conveniens*. The appellant, a resident of the United States and a member of a firm of accountants, was the auditor for Manildra Milling Corporation, a United States subsidiary of the respondent companies. The respondents, incorporated and carrying on business in New South Wales, were involved in the manufacture and sale of starch and starch-related products, with their United States subsidiary purchasing these products and incurring debts for which interest was charged.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the New South Wales courts had properly exercised their discretion in allowing service of process on the appellant in the United States and in refusing to stay the proceedings. The respondents alleged that the appellant, as auditor for Manildra Milling Corporation, had failed to ensure the proper withholding and payment of United States income tax on interest owed by the subsidiary to the first respondent. This omission, it was contended, had significant consequences under both United States and Australian revenue laws, as had the tax been withheld, the interest would have been exempt income for the Australian company. The respondents sought to recover damages for losses allegedly incurred due to the appellant's conduct.

The High Court considered the principles governing service of process out of the jurisdiction and the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*. The Court examined whether the appellant had sufficient connection to New South Wales to justify extraterritorial service and whether New South Wales was the appropriate forum for the litigation, given the appellant's residence and the location of the alleged wrongdoing in the United States. The Court's reasoning would have involved a careful balancing of the interests of the parties and the courts, as well as considerations of justice and convenience, in determining whether to uphold the lower courts' decisions.