Laminex (Aust) Pty Limited v Coe Manufacturing Co & 2 Ors. [1999] NSWCA 370

Laminex (Aust) Pty Limited v Coe Manufacturing Co & 2 Ors. [1999] NSWCA 370

By majority, the contract between Laminex and Coe was made in Oregon, was to be performed in Oregon, and expressly selected Oregon law and venue, so Oregon was the proper law and the refusal of leave and stay of the New South Wales proceedings were generally correct. However, the stay imposed by James J was to be varied by adding a condition that the defendants permit the Trade Practices Act claims pleaded in paragraphs 23-37 to be tried on their merits. The appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Leave to Proceed Against Foreign Defendants, Service and Stay of Proceedings in a Contract and Trade Practices Act Dispute / Appeal From Orders of James J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed only insofar as the second order made by James J on 19 December 1997 was altered; appeal otherwise dismissed; appellants to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['proper Law of Contract' 'governing Law Clause' 'supply of Goods' 'part 10 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules' 'stay of Proceedings' 'trade Practices Act Implied Warranties' 'misrepresentation' 'negligence']
['contract Law' 'conflict of Laws' 'civil Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'tort'] ['proper Law of Contract' 'governing Law Clause' 'supply of Goods' 'part 10 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules' 'stay of Proceedings' 'trade Practices Act Implied Warranties' 'misrepresentation' 'negligence']

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

Appeal Concerning Leave to Proceed Against Foreign Defendants, Service and Stay of Proceedings in a Contract and Trade Practices Act Dispute / Appeal From Orders of James J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under Part 10 rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules to proceed against the first, second and third respondents.' 'Whether the proceedings should be stayed or service set aside on the basis that New South Wales was an inappropriate forum and Oregon was the proper law and venue.' 'Whether the proper law of the contract between the appellant and the first respondent was the law of Oregon or an Australian law.' 'Whether ss 67, 71 and 74 of the Trade Practices Act affected the contractual exclusion of implied warranties and the Oregon governing law clause.' 'Whether the stay should be conditioned to permit the Trade Practices Act claims in paragraphs 23-37 to be tried on their merits.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the contract between Laminex and Coe was made in Oregon, was to be performed in Oregon, and expressly selected Oregon law and venue, so Oregon was the proper law and the refusal of leave and stay of the New South Wales proceedings were generally correct. However, the stay imposed by James J was to be varied by adding a condition that the defendants permit the Trade Practices Act claims pleaded in paragraphs 23-37 to be tried on their merits. The appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed only insofar as the second order made by James J on 19 December 1997 was altered; appeal otherwise dismissed; appellants to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The second order made by James J on 19 December 1997 be altered by the addition of the following words: "and also conditionally on the defendants permitting the claims made by the plaintiffs in paragraphs 23-37 (both inclusive) be tried on their merits".' 'Appeal otherwise dismissed.' "The appellants to pay the...