SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Z487 Limited v Skelton & others [2014] QSC 309
PARTIES:
Z487 LIMITED
(plaintiff)
AND
DONALD ALFRED SKELTON
(first defendant)
AND
ANNARUNGA PTY LTD
(second defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BS 409 of 2014
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
18 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
29-30 September, 1 October 2014
JUDGE:
Atkinson J
ORDER:
1. The Application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – RESTRAINT OF PROCEEDINGS – OF LOCAL PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff sought a declaration that a license agreement for the marketing of New Zealand kiwifruit cultivars was not validly terminated – where the first defendant filed an application pursuant to section 17 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) and rule 16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) seeking a declaration that the claim and statement of claim had not been properly started for want of jurisdiction; an order setting aside the claim and statement of claim; and a stay of the proceeding on the ground that a New Zealand court is the more appropriate forum to determine the matters in issue – where the license agreement contained an exclusive choice of court agreement designating an Australian court as the court to determine the matters in issue – whether the exclusive choice of court agreement is null and void under Australian law (including the rules of private international law)
Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth), s 3, s 17, s 19, s 20, s 21
Eroc Pty Ltd v Amalg Resources NL [2003] QSC 074, cited
Puttick v Tenon Ltd (2008) 238 CLR 265; [2008] HCA 54, cited
Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422; [1983] HCA 5, citedVoth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538, cited
COUNSEL:
J B Sweeney with C M Tam for the plaintiff
C Elliott QC for the first defendant
SOLICITORS:
Doyle Wilson Solicitors for the plaintiff
Quinn & Scattini Lawyers as town agents for Norris Ward McKinnon for the first defendant
On 28 February 2014, Donald Skelton filed an application pursuant to section 17 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) (TTPA) and rule 16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) seeking a declaration that the claim and statement of claim in this proceeding had not been properly started for want of jurisdiction; an order setting aside the claim and statement of claim; and a stay of the proceeding on the ground that a New Zealand court is the more appropriate forum to determine the matters in issue.
In order to determine whether or not this application should succeed it is necessary to traverse some of the history of the proceeding, the questions in dispute, and the directions made by the judge before whom the application was first heard.
History
This proceeding concerns a dispute over the plaintiff’s licence to produce and sell specific cultivars of kiwifruit.
The applicant/first defendant, Mr Skelton,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Z487 Limited v Skelton 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] QSC 309
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth), which provides for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of New Zealand courts in Australia and vice versa. The court also considered the exclusive choice of court agreement in the license agreement, which designated an Australian court as the court to determine the matters in issue. The court held that the exclusive choice of court agreement was valid and binding under Australian law, including the rules of private international law. The court also held that the New Zealand court was not the more appropriate forum to determine the matters in issue, as the agreement clearly designated an Australian court as the court to determine the matters in issue.
Accordingly, the court dismissed Skelton's application. The court held that the exclusive choice of court agreement was valid and binding under Australian law, including the rules of private international law. The court also held that an Australian court was the more appropriate forum to determine the matters in issue. Therefore, the application was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Application is dismissed.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.