Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Raffaele Viscardi SRL v Quality Centre Food Services Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1104 Hearing dates: 13 August 2013 Decision date: 13 August 2013 Before: Adamson J Decision: (1) An order pursuant to s 6(1) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (the Act) that the judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant in Tribunale Di Nocera Inferiore on 20 August 2011 number 755/2011 be registered as a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the sum of €94,988.65. (2) An order that the period within which an application may be made under s 7 of the Act to have registration of the judgment set aside is 14 days after service on the defendant of notice of the registration. (3) An order that the judgment, interest and costs may be enforced to the full extent. (4) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. Catchwords: PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - enforcement of foreign judgments - discrepancies in parties' names Legislation Cited: - Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth), s 6(1), s 6(2)(c), s 6(4), s 7, s 7(1) - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 53.3, r 53.3(1)(d), r 53.3(1)(e), r 53.5, r 53.5(1) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Raffaele Viscardi SRL (Plaintiff) Quality Centre Food Services Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: JM Izzo (solicitor) (Plaintiff) No appearance for the Defendant Solicitors: La Rosa, Izzo & Co (Plaintiff) Jackson Lalic Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/231194 Publication restriction: Nil Judgment Introduction 1The plaintiff Raffaele Viscardi SRL, applies by summons filed on 30 July 2013 for an order pursuant to s 6(1) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act) that a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant, Quality Centre Food Services Pty Ltd, in the Tribunale Di Nocera Inferiore in Italy on 20 August 2011 be registered as a judgment in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the sum of €94,988.65. 2The summons was served on the defendant, which filed an appearance on 6 August 2013. Mr Izzo, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, told me that he had informed Mr Fascetti, the contact person for the defendant's solicitor named on the appearance, of today's hearing. The defendant has chosen not to appear today. I note that the defendant will be given an opportunity to set aside registration of the judgment, as required by s 7(1) of the Act and UCPR 53.5. Requirements of UCPR 53.3 for registration of foreign judgments 3Mr Izzo relied on his affidavit sworn 29 July 2003 in order to establish the matters specified in UCPR 53.3. 4There is a preliminary issue to be determined relating to the names of both the plaintiff and the defendant. Discrepancy between the names of the plaintiff and defendant as recorded in the judgment 5The plaintiff is named in these proceedings as Raffaele Viscardi SRL; however, in the judgment the plaintiff is named Viscardi Raffaele SRL. Mr Izzo informs me from the bar table that it is not uncommon in Italy for the first name and the surname of a person to be reversed. Indeed, it is a common practice. Because the plaintiff's name is, I am informed, the name of a person this explains, according to Mr Izzo, why the judgment creditor's name in the judgment does not correspond exactly with the name of the judgment creditor or plaintiff in the summons. 6I have reviewed the material annexed to Mr Izzo's affidavit and I note, for example, that in Annexure G to the affidavit, which is the sworn Certification of Testimony of Legal Interests, the company is referred to as Raffaele Viscardi SRL which corroborates what Mr Izzo has submitted from the bar table and tends to indicate that the name of a company can be referred to in different ways where the company takes its name from an individual person. 7I am satisfied that the plaintiff's name in these proceedings is, indeed, the judgment creditor for the judgment sought to be registered in this Court. 8There is a further issue relating to the name of the defendant. The defendant in these proceedings is Quality Centre Food Services Pty Ltd and has an ACN of 064 817 509. The judgment nominates, however, the defendant debtor as "Quality Centre Food Service" without the "s Pty Ltd". 9Mr Izzo has specifically adverted to that discrepancy in his affidavit and directed my attention to the matters which he submitted establish that the plaintiff in these proceedings is, indeed, the judgment creditor. He has annexed a copy of the relevant contract on which the proceedings were brought in Italy and referred to the identity of the ACN number on that contract with the ACN number in the proceedings. 10He has also adduced evidence of the defendant's address in the contract and tendered an annual return of the defendant sent to ASIC on 18 February 1999 which provides an address which corresponds with the address for the defendant set out in the contract. 11The judgment debtor's stamp at the bottom of the contract reads as follows: Quality Centre Pty Ltd Food Service ACN 064 817 509 12There appears to be some latitude, if not laxity, in the description by the judgment debtor of its name in the contract, and also in the judgment. However, I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence referred to above, including the identity of address of the judgment creditor and the address of the defendant and the constant ACN number that the defendant is, indeed, the judgment debtor for the judgment sought to be registered. Remaining matters to be proved 13I am satisfied on the basis of the matters contained in the affidavit of Mr Izzo that the judgment or a duly authenticated copy of the judgment has been provided and that it has been translated and certified by a Notary Public and has been authenticated by evidence. The plaintiff has established that the whole of the judgment is sought to be registered in this Court. 14The plaintiff has proved the matter referred to in UCPR 53.3(1)(d): namely the money amount originally payable under the judgment, the interest rate payable on that judgment and the method of its calculation. The amount for costs has also been proved. I am also satisfied of the matter in UCPR 53.3(1)(e), namely, that this Court is the appropriate Court under s 6(2)(c) of the Act. 15I am satisfied that Mr Izzo's affidavit establishes the other matters required to be proved in UCPR 53.3, including the rate of interest and the amount of interest which has become due under the judgment up to the time of application for registration, although, as Mr Izzo submitted, the order sought is the order in the summons which has an interest calculation to 26 July 2013 and no interest is sought for the period from 26 July 2013 to 13 August 2013. 16The plaintiff has established that it is entitled to enforce the whole of the judgment, which is a final and conclusive judgment of the Tribunale Di Nocera Inferiore. 17An order for registration of a foreign judgment must state the period within which an application may be made under s 7 of the Act to set aside registration of the judgment: 6(4) of the Act. Mr Izzo submitted that it would be appropriate for me to specify 14 days, being the minimum time which I am permitted to allow under UCPR 53.5(1). 18Given that the summons has been served and the defendant was aware that the application would be heard today, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the period allowed for such application be the minimum period of 14 days. Orders 19Accordingly, I make the following orders: (1)An order pursuant to s 6(1) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act) that the judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant in Tribunale Di Nocera Inferiore on 20 August 2011 number 755/2011 be registered as a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the sum of €94,988.65. (2)An order that the period within which an application may be made under s 7 of the Act to have registration of the judgment set aside is 14 days after service on the defendant of notice of the registration. (3)An order that the judgment, interest and costs may be enforced to the full extent. (4)Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 14 August 2013