Chapman, Russell Burley v Gooch Ware Travelstead & Ors [1998] FCA 674

Chapman, Russell Burley v Gooch Ware Travelstead & Ors [1998] FCA 674

Chapman had not failed to show a prima facie case under O 8 r 2(2). Although the alleged ratifying resolution was weak, it was at least arguable on the materials that Blockless was effectively controlled by Travelstead after acquisition, was acquired to implement the ACP Group transaction, and was sufficiently connected with Travelstead's negotiations and their implementation or variation that adoption and ratification of his conduct was open. The Court therefore declined to interfere with Nicholson J's order for service out of the jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Motion to Set Aside Service Out of the Jurisdiction / Reasons for Judgment on Fourth Respondent's Motion and Applicant's Leave to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Fourth Respondent's motion dismissed; Applicant granted leave to amend the statement of claim.
Legal Topics
['service Out of the Jurisdiction' 'setting Aside Service' 'prima Facie Case' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'negligent Misstatement' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'ratification' 'foreign Law']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'agency' 'negligence' 'equity' 'private International Law'] ['service Out of the Jurisdiction' 'setting Aside Service' 'prima Facie Case' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'negligent Misstatement' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'ratification' 'foreign Law']

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

Motion to Set Aside Service Out of the Jurisdiction / Reasons for Judgment on Fourth Respondent's Motion and Applicant's Leave to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant had a prima facie case for relief against Blockless sufficient to support service outside Australia under O 8 r 2(2) of the Federal Court Rules.' "Whether Travelstead's conduct could arguably be attributed to Blockless by agency, adoption or ratification, including under Dutch law." 'Whether the order for service out of the jurisdiction should be set aside under O 9 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the Applicant should have leave to amend the statement of claim to reflect that Blockless was incorporated in 1981 and allegedly later acquired or controlled by Travelstead.']

Ratio Decidendi

Chapman had not failed to show a prima facie case under O 8 r 2(2). Although the alleged ratifying resolution was weak, it was at least arguable on the materials that Blockless was effectively controlled by Travelstead after acquisition, was acquired to implement the ACP Group transaction, and was sufficiently connected with Travelstead's negotiations and their implementation or variation that adoption and ratification of his conduct was open. The Court therefore declined to interfere with Nicholson J's order for service out of the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Fourth Respondent's motion dismissed; Applicant granted leave to amend the statement of claim.

Orders

  • ["The Fourth Respondent's motion filed 17 March 1998 is dismissed." 'The costs of the motion are reserved.' 'The Applicant has leave to amend its statement of claim in accordance with the minute of amended statement of claim filed 6 May 1998.' 'The Applicant is to pay any costs thrown away by reason of the...