NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision: 79 ACSR 383
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Global Partners Fund Limited v Babcock & Brown Limited (in liq) and Ors [2010] NSWCA 196 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 16 June 2010 17 June 2010
JUDGMENT DATE: 12 August 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Giles JA at 101; Tobias JA at 102
1 Leave to appeal is granted DECISION: 2 Direct the applicant to file a notice of appeal within 14 days. 3 Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - stay of proceedings - exclusive jurisdiction clauses - failure of plaintiff to identify strong reasons against a stay of proceedings - whether considerations applicable to staying proceedings on a forum non conveniens basis also applicable to exclusive jurisdiction clauses - CONTRACTS - construction and interpretation of contracts - scope of exclusive jurisdiction clauses - whether non-parties entitled to stay proceedings instituted in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause - CORPORATIONS - winding up - application for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation - financial capacity of a company to conduct litigation
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Corporations Act 2001
Akai Pty Ltd v People's Insurance Co Limited (1996) 188 CLR 418 Ashville Investments Ltd v Elmer Contractors Ltd [1989] 1 QB 488 Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 192; (2006) 157 FCR 45 Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd v MLC (Bermuda) Ltd [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 767 Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 425 FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Ocean Marine Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (1997) 41 NSWLR 559 Ferris v Plaister (1994) 34 NSWLR 474 Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40; [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 254 Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160 CASES CITED: Huddart Parker Limited v The Ship "Mill Hill" (1950) 81 CLR 502 IBM Australia Ltd v National Distribution Services Limited (1991) 22 NSWLR 466 Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corporation [2004] FCA 698; (2004) 138 FCR 496 Meehan v Stockmans Australian Café (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 123 Metropolitan Tunnel and Public Works Limited v London Electric Railway Co [1926] Ch 371 Morgan Stanley & Co International plc v China Haisheng Juice Holdings Co Ltd [2010] 1 Lloyd's L Rep 265 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 Ogilvie-Grant v East Liquidator of Gordon Grant and Grant Pty Ltd (1983) 7 ACLR 669; [1983] 2 Qd R 314 The Eleftheria [1970] P 94; [1969] 2 WLR 1073 United Group Rail Services Limited v Rail Corporation of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 177; (2009) 74 NSWLR 618 Winnetka Trading Corp v Julius Baer International Ltd [2008] EWHC 3146; [2009] 2 All ER 735
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