Williams v TT-Line - [2019] VSC 869

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
ADMIRALTY LIST

Not Restricted

S ECI 2018 0998

ANDREW MICHAEL WILLIAMS, REBECCA ANN WILLIAMS, TWYNAM AGRICULTURAL GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 000 573 213) and WILLO POLO PTY LTD (ACN 149 110 412)	Plaintiffs
v
TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 061 996 174) and QUBE PORTS PTY LTD (ACN 123 021 492)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Digby J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 August 2019
DATE OF RULING:	22 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Williams & Ors v TT-Line & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 869

---

ADMIRALTY – Stay – Whether civil proceeding should be stayed pending the determination of a criminal proceeding relating to the same subject matter – Whether a stay is necessary for the protection of privilege against self-incrimination – Exercise of discretion – Factors relevant to stay of proceeding - Application refused – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 23.01(1)(b) and inherent powers to stay.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr C Harrison QC	Ryan Legal
For the First Defendant	Mr M Scott QC with Ms M Norton	HFW Australia
For the Second Defendant	Mr M Harvey	Colin Biggers & Paisley

HIS HONOUR:

This Application

The plaintiffs apply to stay this proceeding on the basis that a parallel criminal proceeding concerning largely overlapping facts has been commenced by Biosecurity Tasmania.

Background
Sixteen horses perish in transport

On 28 January 2018, thirty horses were transported on board the vessel Spirit of Tasmania 1 (vessel) owned by TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (first defendant) from Devonport in the State of Tasmania to Melbourne in the State of Victoria. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that sixteen of these horses died in transit between Tasmania and Victoria.

Eighteen horses were in a prime mover with registration number ‘CE96CK’ towing a trailer with registration number ‘TA27PF’ (CE96CK vehicle) and twelve horses were in a motor vehicle registration number ‘AM38VY’ (AM38VY vehicle).

The contractual arrangement pursuant to which the plaintiffs allege the horses were transported on 28 January 2018 is in summary that:

(a) on or about early December 2017, the first defendant entered into an agreement with Mr Andrew Williams (first plaintiff) in relation to the transportation of the plaintiffs’ horses, which were to be driven aboard the vessel in two vehicles, and transported aboard the vessel across Bass Strait, between Victoria and Tasmania;

(b) alternatively, the carriage of the horses as outlined in paragraph (a) was to be undertaken pursuant to a contract made on or about 23 December 2016, between the first plaintiff and Barnbougle Golf Pty Ltd.

Preceding the return carriage across Bass Strait to Melbourne referred to above, the same horses were earlier transported to Tasmania pursuant to one or other of the transport arrangements referred to in the last preceding paragraph. On that earlier trip to Tasmania, twenty-one horses were transported on 10 December 2017 in the CE96CK vehicle on a vessel from Melbourne to Devonport and…

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.

Continue reading Williams v TT-Line

Details

AGLC: Williams v TT-Line [2019] VSC 869
Case: [2019] VSC 869
Decision Date: 22 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v TT-Line involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Williams, and the defendant, TT-Line. The matter was before the Federal Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction over admiralty matters. The central issue before the court was whether the civil proceeding brought by Williams should be stayed pending the determination of a criminal proceeding relating to the same subject matter.

The court had to determine if a stay was necessary to protect Williams’ privilege against self-incrimination, as provided by the Constitution. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to grant a stay, the court considered several factors, including the overlap in subject matter between the civil and criminal proceedings, the potential for prejudice to the parties, and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of disputes. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that a stay was not necessary in this case.

The Federal Court found that the interests of justice did not require the civil proceeding to be stayed. The court emphasised that the privilege against self-incrimination was not an absolute right and that its exercise had to be balanced against other considerations. The court also noted that the criminal proceeding was at an early stage, and there was no immediate risk of prejudice to Williams. Consequently, the application for a stay was refused, and the civil proceeding was allowed to proceed.

Orders