Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Amalia Investments Ltd v Virgtel Global Networks N.V. (No. 2) [2011] FCA 1270 Citation: Amalia Investments Ltd v Virgtel Global Networks N.V. (No. 2) [2011] FCA 1270
Parties: AMALIA INVESTMENTS LTD, AMALIA ZABUSKY and HARVEY ZABUSKY v VIRGTEL GLOBAL NETWORKS N.V., HENDRIK VAN LEEUWEN, MARIA ANTONIA JOSEPHINA ADRIANA VAN LEEUWEN-VAN HAL and VISCAYA ARMADORA S.A.
File number(s): QUD 3 of 2009
Judge: GREENWOOD J
Date of judgment: 7 November 2011
Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – consideration of an application for an order for transfer of Federal Court proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland under s 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) – consideration of the application of s 5(4) in circumstances where the Federal Court proceedings fail to enliven any element of federal jurisdiction – consideration of whether the integers of s 5(4) can be made out in respect of a pending proceeding where no federal element arises – consideration of whether a transfer order ought to be made in circumstances where it appears to the Court that the Federal Court proceedings have been commenced as an abuse of process PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application for an order for transfer of Federal Court proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland under s 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)
Legislation: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 5(4), s 9(3) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B(1A)(c)
Cases cited: Goliath Portland Cement Company v Bengtell (1994) 33 NSWLR 414 - cited Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 - cited LNC Industries Ltd v BMW Australia Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575 – cited BHP Billiton Limited v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400 – cited and quoted Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711 - cited Cascade Group Limited v Carlton and United Breweries Limited; [1992] ATPR 40,358 - cited Buckley v Gibbett (1996) 69 FCR 554 - cited Leithead v Leithead (1991) 109 FLR 177 - cited Hoddell v Hoddell Pty Ltd [1999] WASC 156 - cited Armstrong v Armstrong [2004] WASC 121 - cited Bell Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (2000) 173 ALR 427 - cited Foley v Green [2011] VSC 155 - cited Mattock v Mattock (1989) 13 Fam LR 288 - cited Virgtel Limited & Anor v Zabusky & Ors [2006] QSC 66 - cited Virgtel Limited & Anor v Zabusky & Ors [2006] QSC 241 - cited Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors [2008] QSC 213 - cited Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors (No 2) [2008] QSC 316 - cited Amalia Investments Ltd v Virgtel Global Networks NV [2009] FCA 39 - cited Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors [2009] QCA 92 - cited Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors [2009] QCA 349 - cited Virgtel Ltd & Anor v Zabusky & Ors [2011] QSC 269 - cited Zabusky & Anor v van Leeuwen & Anor [2011] QSC 270 – cited Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 - cited
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate