Tiezone Pty Ltd v Schenker Stinnes Logistics [2003] FCA 281
Leave to serve outside Australia was granted because the plaintiffs established a sufficient prima facie basis under Order 8: against the first defendant through the house bill and alleged damage before delivery in Sydney, and against the third and fourth defendants through arguable possession, bailment or negligence arising from their ownership or management connections with the vessels involved. The Court relied on O 8 r 1 pars (ad) and (g), and also found a prima facie case under pars (a) and (aa) against the first defendant, while rejecting reliance on par (h).
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 March 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Carriage of Goods; Service Ex Juris / Ex Parte Notice of Motion by the Plaintiffs Seeking Leave to Serve an Application and Amended Statement of Claim Outside Australia Under Order 8 of the Federal Court Rules
- Outcome
- Leave granted to serve the application and amended statement of claim outside Australia on the first, third and fourth defendants, subject to compliance with the specified divisions of Order 8; costs reserved; further affidavit required; matter stood over.
- Legal Topics
- ['service Outside Australia' 'order 8 of the Federal Court Rules' 'international Carriage of Wine' 'house Bill and Ocean Bill' 'damage by Freezing in Refrigerated Container' 'prima Facie Case for Service Ex Juris']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Carriage of Goods; Service Ex Juris / Ex Parte Notice of Motion by the Plaintiffs Seeking Leave to Serve an Application and Amended Statement of Claim Outside Australia Under Order 8 of the Federal Court Rules
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to serve the application and amended statement of claim outside Australia on the first, third and fourth defendants under Order 8 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the plaintiffs had shown a sufficient prima facie case against the first defendant arising from a contract of carriage requiring delivery of goods in good order and condition in Sydney.' 'Whether the plaintiffs had shown a sufficient prima facie case against the third and fourth defendants in negligence or bailment as owners of vessels involved in carrying the goods.' 'Whether paragraphs (ad), (g) or (h) of O 8 r 1 supported service outside Australia.']
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to serve outside Australia was granted because the plaintiffs established a sufficient prima facie basis under Order 8: against the first defendant through the house bill and alleged damage before delivery in Sydney, and against the third and fourth defendants through arguable possession, bailment or negligence arising from their ownership or management connections with the vessels involved. The Court relied on O 8 r 1 pars (ad) and (g), and also found a prima facie case under pars (a) and (aa) against the first defendant, while rejecting reliance on par (h).
Court Disposition
Leave granted to serve the application and amended statement of claim outside Australia on the first, third and fourth defendants, subject to compliance with the specified divisions of Order 8; costs reserved; further affidavit required; matter stood over.
Orders
- ['Leave be granted to the plaintiffs subject to compliance with Div 2 of O 8 in respect of the first and third defendants and Div 3 of O 8 in respect of the fourth defendant to serve the application and amended statement of claim (appropriately amended as to name) outside Australia on the first, third and fourth...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment