Quadrant Private Equity No. 1 LP & Ors v Hewlett Packard Emea Holdings II BV [2010] NSWSC 813

Quadrant Private Equity No. 1 LP & Ors v Hewlett Packard Emea Holdings II BV [2010] NSWSC 813

As both the NSW and Victorian proceedings require determination of the validity of HP's claims under the relevant contractual provisions and there is significant overlap, the interests of justice require transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Quadrant Private Equity No. 1 LP; Second Plaintiff: Hoff Company No. 1 Pty Limited; Third Plaintiff: Berend John Phillip Hoff; Defendant: Hewlett Packard Emea Holdings II BV
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Application to Transfer Proceedings / Interlocutory (motion for Transfer of Proceedings Under Cross Vesting Legislation)
Outcome
Application to cross vest proceedings allowed. Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Legal Topics
Cross Vesting of Proceedings, Transfer of Proceedings Between Supreme Courts, Jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987, Bank Guarantee Dispute, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Cross Vesting of Proceedings Transfer of Proceedings Between Supreme Courts Jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 Bank Guarantee Dispute Declaratory Relief

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quadrant Private Equity No. 1 LP

First Plaintiff

Hoff Company No. 1 Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Berend John Phillip Hoff

Third Plaintiff

Hewlett Packard Emea Holdings II BV

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Application to Transfer Proceedings / Interlocutory (motion for Transfer of Proceedings Under Cross Vesting Legislation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria under s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient overlap between the NSW and Victorian proceedings to justify transfer

Ratio Decidendi

As both the NSW and Victorian proceedings require determination of the validity of HP's claims under the relevant contractual provisions and there is significant overlap, the interests of justice require transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Court Disposition

Application to cross vest proceedings allowed. Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Orders

  • Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria under s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987.