Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (No 3) [2013] FCA 85 Citation: Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (No 3) [2013] FCA 85
Parties: FEDERAL TREASURY ENTERPRISE (FKP) SOJUZPLODOIMPORT and FEDERAL PUBLIC UNITARY ENTERPRISE EXTERNAL ECONOMIC UNION SOJUZPLODOIMPORT (FGUP VO); SPIRITS INTERNATIONAL B.V. (REGISTERED IN THE NETHERLANDS)
File number: NSD 1816 of 2004
Judge: EDMONDS J
Date of judgment: 15 February 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to file and serve draft rejoinder – application opposed on ground of absence of material facts to support pleadings going to (1) violation of rules of natural justice involving bias or apprehension of bias on the part of foreign court and (2) that recognition of foreign judgment would be contrary to public policy in Australia – application refused
Legislation: Judiciary Act (1901) (Cth)
Cases cited: Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 discussed AK Investments CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobitel Ltd & Ors [2011] UKPC 7 discussed Boele v Norsemeter Holding A/S [2002] NSWCA 363 cited Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 cited Brumarescu v Romania 28342/95 [1999] ECHR 105 cited Case of OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya v Russia, Application No 1641/02, Judgment of 7 June 2007 cited Deripaska v Cherney [2009] EWCA 849 cited Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International BV [2010] FCA 1293 upheld on appeal [2011] FCAFC 69 cited Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (No 2) [2012] FCA 23 affirmed Films by Jove v Joseph Beroz 341 F Supp 2d 199 (2004) distinguished Hicks v Ruddock (2007) 156 FCR 574 cited Mokbel v Attorney-General (Cth) (2007) 162 FCR 278 cited Pemberton v Hughes [1899] 1 Ch 781 cited Ryabykh 52854/99 [2003] ECHR 396 cited Sovtransavto Holding v Ukraine 4855/99 [2002] ECHR 626 cited Spirits International BV v FKP Sojuzplodoimport, Case No. 105.005.107/02, ruling of 24 July 2012 cited Stern v National Australia Bank Limited [1999] FCA 1421 discussed The Government of the Russian Federation v Yuri V Shefler, City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, 8 June 2010 (unreported) cited Volkova v Russia 48758199 [2005] ECHR 214 cited Voth v Manildra Flour Mills (1990) 171 CLR 538 cited Yukos Capital S.a.r.L v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company [2011)] EWHC 1461 (Comm), [2012] All ER (Comm) 479; on appeal [2012] EWCA Civ 855 distinguished Barnett PR, Res Judicata, Estoppel and Foreign Judgments (Oxford University Press, 2001) Martin D, Nygh's Conflict of Laws in Australia (8th ed, Butterworths, 2010)
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