Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (No 3) [2013] FCA 85

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (No 3) [2013] FCA 85

Leave was refused because paragraphs 3 and 4 of the draft rejoinder were bare allegations of actual or apprehended bias supported only by evidentiary material of doubtful relevance and admissibility, without material facts or circumstances concerning the conduct or reasoning of the Presidium in the relevant proceedings; they therefore had no reasonable prospects of success and did not convey the case FKP had to meet. Paragraph 5 was also refused because the asserted unfairness of a State-only procuratorial appeal or protest procedure had no prospect of establishing inconsistency with public policy in Australia.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application for Leave to File and Serve Draft Rejoinder / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application refused and dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to File Rejoinder' 'issue Estoppel' 'abuse of Process' 'recognition of Foreign Judgment' 'natural Justice' 'actual Bias and Apprehended Bias' 'public Policy']
['practice and Procedure' 'private International Law' 'foreign Judgments'] ['leave to File Rejoinder' 'issue Estoppel' 'abuse of Process' 'recognition of Foreign Judgment' 'natural Justice' 'actual Bias and Apprehended Bias' 'public Policy']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Application for Leave to File and Serve Draft Rejoinder / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Spirits should be granted leave to file and serve the draft rejoinder.' 'Whether the proposed pleadings alleging violation of natural justice by actual or apprehended bias of the Presidium were adequately particularised and had reasonable prospects of success.' 'Whether the proposed pleading that recognition of the Presidium Decision would be contrary to public policy in Australia had reasonable prospects of success.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because paragraphs 3 and 4 of the draft rejoinder were bare allegations of actual or apprehended bias supported only by evidentiary material of doubtful relevance and admissibility, without material facts or circumstances concerning the conduct or reasoning of the Presidium in the relevant proceedings; they therefore had no reasonable prospects of success and did not convey the case FKP had to meet. Paragraph 5 was also refused because the asserted unfairness of a State-only procuratorial appeal or protest procedure had no prospect of establishing inconsistency with public policy in Australia.

Court Disposition

Application refused and dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to file and serve the draft rejoinder served on the solicitors for the cross-claimant on 9 October 2012 be and is hereby refused.' "The cross-respondent pay the cross-claimants' costs of this application."]