McGuid -v- Office De Commercialisation et D'Exportation [2000] NSWSC 503

McGuid -v- Office De Commercialisation et D'Exportation [2000] NSWSC 503

The Court has no jurisdiction to maintain an interlocutory injunction restraining the bank where there is no substantive right before it, and neither s 23 nor s 66(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 nor inherent jurisdiction support maintaining the order in aid of proceedings to be determined in a foreign jurisdiction. The interlocutory order against the bank must be discharged and proceedings dismissed as against the bank.

Parties
Plaintiff: Sarwat McGuid t/as ABS Gulf; First Defendant: Office De Commercialisation et D'Exportation; Second Defendant: National Australia Bank Limited; Third Defendant: Export Finance Insurance Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Notice of Motion by Second Defendant to Discharge Injunction and Dismiss Proceedings
Outcome
orders granted as sought in notice of motion; plaintiff to pay second defendant's costs
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Injunctions, Inherent Jurisdiction, Foreign Proceedings, Mareva Injunction, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses
Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Interlocutory Orders Injunctions Inherent Jurisdiction Foreign Proceedings Mareva Injunction +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarwat McGuid t/as ABS Gulf

Plaintiff

Office De Commercialisation et D'Exportation

First Defendant

National Australia Bank Limited

Second Defendant

Export Finance Insurance Corporation

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Notice of Motion by Second Defendant to Discharge Injunction and Dismiss Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should maintain an interlocutory order (injunction) against the second defendant (bank) when there is no substantive right over which the Court has jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the order can be maintained pending foreign proceedings (lis alibi pendens)
  3. 3 Whether the inherent jurisdiction or power under s 23 or s 66(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 supports the order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has no jurisdiction to maintain an interlocutory injunction restraining the bank where there is no substantive right before it, and neither s 23 nor s 66(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 nor inherent jurisdiction support maintaining the order in aid of proceedings to be determined in a foreign jurisdiction. The interlocutory order against the bank must be discharged and proceedings dismissed as against the bank.

Court Disposition

orders granted as sought in notice of motion; plaintiff to pay second defendant's costs

Orders

  • The interlocutory order restraining National Australia Bank Limited from paying Banque Marocaine Du Commerce, Casablanca any amount on account of Sarwat McGuid t/as ABS Gulf pursuant to standby letter of credit AI2098048635 is discharged.
  • Proceedings against the second defendant are dismissed.