AAP Industries Pty Limited v Rehau Pte Limited [2015] NSWSC 468

AAP Industries Pty Limited v Rehau Pte Limited [2015] NSWSC 468

Clause 18 of Rehau's conditions of purchase did not comfortably sit alongside the jurisdiction clause in the Supply Agreement and was not part of that agreement. Clause XIII of the Supply Agreement, which stated that the agreed place of jurisdiction was Singapore, was not an exclusive jurisdiction clause because it lacked exclusive or mandatory language and Singapore was not shown to be the natural forum. Consequently, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was not an inappropriate forum and the relief to set aside service or stay the proceedings was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Service of the Statement of Claim and Permanently Stay Proceedings / Application Determined After Service Outside New South Wales
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'forum Non Conveniens' 'construction of Contract' 'service Outside New South Wales']
['private International Law' 'contract' 'civil Procedure'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'forum Non Conveniens' 'construction of Contract' 'service Outside New South Wales']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Service of the Statement of Claim and Permanently Stay Proceedings / Application Determined After Service Outside New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Rehau's conditions of purchase, including cl 18, formed part of the September 1999 Supply Agreement." 'Whether cl XIII of the Supply Agreement was an exclusive jurisdiction clause requiring disputes to be brought in Singapore.' 'Whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales was an inappropriate forum for the proceedings.' 'Whether, if cl XIII were exclusive, it covered the dispute pleaded by AAP and whether the Court should nevertheless refuse a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 18 of Rehau's conditions of purchase did not comfortably sit alongside the jurisdiction clause in the Supply Agreement and was not part of that agreement. Clause XIII of the Supply Agreement, which stated that the agreed place of jurisdiction was Singapore, was not an exclusive jurisdiction clause because it lacked exclusive or mandatory language and Singapore was not shown to be the natural forum. Consequently, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was not an inappropriate forum and the relief to set aside service or stay the proceedings was refused.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • ["Rehau is to pay AAP's costs of and incidental to the determination of the notice of motion." 'The matter is stood over to 27 April 2015 before the Registrar.']