Crupe Pte Limited v Stuart Kinnear Robertson [2018] NSWSC 2056

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Crupe Pte Limited v Stuart Kinnear Robertson [2018] NSWSC 2056 Hearing dates: 12 December 2018 Date of orders: 12 December 2018 Decision date: 12 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Pembroke J Decision: Interlocutory orders continued Catchwords: INJUNCTIONS – interlocutory hearing – disputed – question of fact – proof of foreign law – uncertainty EVIDENCE – expert opinions – interlocutory hearing – opinions not reconcilable – continuation of injunctions Legislation Cited: Swiss Federal Code on Private International Law Cases Cited: Kolback Securities v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533 Severstal Export GmbH v Bhushan Steel Ltd [2013] NSWLR 141 Texts Cited: Proof of Foreign Law – Problems and Initiatives [2011] NSWJ Schol 13 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crupe Pte Limited – first plaintiff Crupe International (Holdings) GMBH – second plaintiff Stuart Kinnear Robertson – first defendant Michele Fleury Robertson – second defendant Representation: Counsel: Mr D B Studdy SC with Mr C J Palmer – for the first and second plaintiffs Mr M Darke QC with Mr B A Hall – for the first and second defendants

Solicitors: Colin Biggers Paisley – for the first and second plaintiffs Minter Ellison – for the first and second defendants File Number(s): 2018/3583000

Judgment

Introduction 1. This is an application for interlocutory relief in the same terms as the claim for final relief in the summons. No other relief is sought. The relief sought consists of worldwide freezing orders against the defendants. 2. Interlocutory orders were first made by Lindsay J on 21 November 2018. They were continued by the Chief Judge in Equity on 27 November 2018 and continued again by me on 7 December. The matter came back to me today in the duty judge's list in the last week of term. On 7 December, after discussion with counsel, it was apparent that there needed to be some better evidence, including possibly expert evidence, in relation to the questions of foreign law that are central to the claim and the defendants' opposition to it. 3. This is not a final hearing. The application to continue the freezing orders has come on hurriedly and has been affected by the exigencies of the list. When the Court is being asked to grant interlocutory relief it must consider what course is best calculated to achieve justice between the parties in the circumstances of the particular case pending the resolution of any uncertainty and bearing in mind the consequence to the defendants of the grant of an injunction and the consequence to the plaintiffs of the refusal of an injunction: Kolback Securities v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533 at 535 (McLelland J). As McLelland J said in that case: Where that uncertainty depends in whole or in part upon a contested question of fact, it is not appropriate for the Court to decide that question on an interlocutory application. Where the uncertainty depends in whole or in part on a contested question of law, it may or may not be appropriate for the Court to decide that question on the interlocutory application depending on the circumstances.