BY Winddown, Inc v Vautin [2016] FCAFC 168

BY Winddown, Inc v Vautin [2016] FCAFC 168

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not show sufficient doubt in the correctness of the primary judge's construction and application of item 20 of r 10.42 and r 10.43(4)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Costa Vraca was not shown to be plainly wrong; rather, its approach was consistent with the text, context and s 22 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). It was sufficient that Mr Vautin had a prima facie case against Eagle Yachts and that BY Winddown, as manufacturer, was involved in the same matter. The claimed substantial injustice did not arise, and the courts below and the Full Court were bound to apply Voth.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal From Vautin V by Winddown, Inc (no 2) [2016] FCA 1235
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'service Outside Australia' 'joinder of Parties' 'prima Facie Case Requirement' 'forum Non Conveniens' 'carrying on Business in Australia']
['practice and Procedure' 'conflict of Laws' 'consumer Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'service Outside Australia' 'joinder of Parties' 'prima Facie Case Requirement' 'forum Non Conveniens' 'carrying on Business in Australia']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal From Vautin V by Winddown, Inc (no 2) [2016] FCA 1235

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether BY Winddown was properly joined to Mr Vautin's claim against Eagle Yachts for the purposes of item 20 of r 10.42 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)." 'Whether Costa Vraca Pty Ltd v Bell Regal Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 305 applied and should be followed.' 'Whether there was a prima facie case for the purposes of r 10.43(4)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that BY Winddown was carrying on business within Australia.' 'Whether the proceedings should be permanently stayed on forum non conveniens grounds and whether Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd remained binding law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not show sufficient doubt in the correctness of the primary judge's construction and application of item 20 of r 10.42 and r 10.43(4)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Costa Vraca was not shown to be plainly wrong; rather, its approach was consistent with the text, context and s 22 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). It was sufficient that Mr Vautin had a prima facie case against Eagle Yachts and that BY Winddown, as manufacturer, was involved in the same matter. The claimed substantial injustice did not arise, and the courts below and the Full Court were bound to apply Voth.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal dated 30 September 2016 be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents, as agreed or assessed.']