Elliott and anor v Pacific Energy Ltd and anor [2005] NSWIRComm 381
The first applicant received a remuneration package exceeding $200,000 in the relevant period, falling within s 108A(1)(a), and thus the court has no jurisdiction to hear the summons, which must be struck out.
- Parties
- First Applicant: Stewart Elliott; Second Applicant: Asia Pacific Infrastructure Limited; First Respondent: Pacific Energy Limited; Second Respondent: Project Global Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 November 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Unfair Contract Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out Application
- Outcome
- summons struck out for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out Motion, Jurisdiction, Concurrent Proceedings, Remuneration Cap
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stewart Elliott
First Applicant
Asia Pacific Infrastructure Limited
Second Applicant
Pacific Energy Limited
First Respondent
Project Global Limited
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Unfair Contract Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the application under s 106 given the remuneration cap in s 108A(1)(a)
- 2 Whether the proceedings should be struck out based on remuneration paid to the applicant
Ratio Decidendi
The first applicant received a remuneration package exceeding $200,000 in the relevant period, falling within s 108A(1)(a), and thus the court has no jurisdiction to hear the summons, which must be struck out.
Court Disposition
summons struck out for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- The summons is struck out.
- Costs are reserved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment