Hallen v Angledal [1999] NSWSC 552

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Hallen v Angledal [1999] NSWSC 552 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Commercial FILE NUMBER(S) : 50055/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 07/06/99 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 June 1999

Lars Hallen - First Plaintiff PARTIES : Sten Unnerstedt - Second Plaintiff Sven-Olov Angledal - First Defendant Margaretha Irene Angledal - Second Defendant JUDGMENT OF : Rolfe J

COUNSEL : Mr P.M. Wood - Plaintiffs Mr A.I. Tonking - Defendants SOLICITORS : Clayton Utz - Plaintiffs Letherbarrow Lawyers - Defendants CATCHWORDS : Summons by plaintiffs to enforce an arbitral award made in Sweden.; Application by the defendants for an adjournment of the proceedings, because of the institution of proceedings before a competent authority in Sweden to set aside the award pursuant to s.8(8) of the International Arbitration Act 1974.; Held the factual matters necessary to found the stay and for the exercise of discretion not made out, and that no evidence of a prima facie case.; Held no basis to grant a stay because Stamp Duty not paid on the agreement sued on.; Held that no limitation point under s.20 of the Limitation Act 1969 was available: Brali v Hyundai Corporation (1988) 15 NSWLR 734 noted. DECISION : Defendants' Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

26 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION COMMERCIAL LIST

ROLFE J

THURSDAY, 10 JUNE 1999

50055/1999 - HALLEN & ANOR v ANGLEDAL & ANOR

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction 1 The plaintiffs, for whom Mr P.M. Wood of Counsel appeared, commenced these proceedings by a Summons filed on 28 April 1999, whereby they sought leave to enforce, in the same manner as a judgment of this Court, the Arbitral Award, ("the Award"), made in Stockholm, Sweden, on 10 July 1996 in an arbitration between the plaintiffs and the defendants, for whom Mr A.I. Tonking of Counsel appeared, in respect of the sums found by the Arbitrators to be due by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought an order that judgment be entered in their favour in respect of those sums and an order for costs. 2 The plaintiffs pleaded that on 20 July 1983 Medipac Pty Limited, ("Medipac"), was registered as a proprietary company in Australia and sold medical products, and that prior to 19 February 1993 the plaintiffs and the defendants each owned four shares in it. It was pleaded that on 19 February 1993 the parties entered into a written agreement in the Swedish language, ("the Agreement"), of which it was an express term that the plaintiffs would transfer their shares to the defendants in consideration of a payment to be made by the defendants to the plaintiffs, and that it was a further express term that should any dispute arise with regard to the validity, interpretation or suitability of the Agreement, that would be decided by arbitration in Stockholm, Sweden, in accordance with applicable legislation. 3 The pleading continued that a dispute arose; that Arbitrators were appointed, although the defendants made no such appointment; and that on 10 July 1996 the Arbitrators made the Award, a copy of which was forwarded to the parties on or about 22 July 1996. It is not in issue that the defendants have not paid the amounts referred to in the Award. 4 The plaintiffs' contentions are that the Award constituted a "foreign award" pursuant to the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), ("the Act"); that it was made pursuant to the Agreement; and that it may be recognised and enforced in this Court. 5 On 2 June 1999 the defendants filed a Notice of Motion seeking the following relief:- "1. The proceedings be adjourned pursuant to s.8(8) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 pending the final determination of the Swedish Court proceedings referred to in the affidavit of the second defendant sworn on 2 June 1999. 2. Further or in the alternative, the proceedings be stayed until such time as the plaintiffs have complied with s.28 of the Stamp Duties Act 1920. 3. The proceedings be removed from the Commercial List of the Equity Division." 6 On the hearing of that Notice of Motion the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion seeking an order that the defendants provide security in their favour in the amounts claimed or, in the alternative, in such amount and in such manner as the Court may determine.