NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Vetreria Etrusca SRL v Elitepak Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 496
HEARING DATE(S) : 13 May 2008 JURISDICTION : Common Law
JUDGMENT OF : Adams J at 1
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 13 May 2008
DECISION : Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS : Foreign judgment by defendant - whether should be registered - not a judgment of this Court - cannot be set aside.
Civil Procedure Act 2005 s86 LEGISLATION CITED : Foreign Judgments Act 1991 s7 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 order 36.15
PARTIES : Vetreria Etrusca SRL (Plaintiff) Elitepak Pty Limited ACN 103 927 466 (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2007/14112
COUNSEL : Ms R Francois - Plaintiff/Respondent Mr A P Coleman - Defendant/Applicant
SOLICITORS : Cornwall Stodart - Plaintiff/Respondent Turnbull Hill Lawyers - Defendant/Applicant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADAMS J
Tuesday 13 May 2008
14112/07 VETRERIA ETRUSCA SRL v ELITEPAK PTY LIMITED (ACN 103 927 466)
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: The defendant, Elitepak Pty Ltd, purchased bottles which were made in Italy and imported into this country. The plaintiff, Vetreria Etrusca SRL, claimed that it supplied those bottles to Elitepak and was entitled to payment of something over $19,000 for them. 2 Vetreria sued Elitepak in the Tribunale of the Court of Florence and obtained a judgment on 23 September 2006. A certified copy of the judgment was provided to Elitepak by the Italian Consul General in Sydney on about 20 November 2006. The document comprised the judgment in Italian signed by the Clerk of the Court and a Judge, together with an interpretation in English duly certified. That interpretation describes the document as a "petition for writ of injunction", not as a judgment. The document states that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Vetreria claimed that Vetreria had supplied goods as specified in an invoice to Elitepak but that those goods had not been paid for within the agreed time frame of 60 days. It then goes on to state that the Italian Courts had jurisdiction to determine the matter, although it dealt with a contract involving a non-Italian party. Some detail of the reasons justifying the assertion of the jurisdiction are set out. 3 The document then states: " HE APPEALS
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