Elliott and anor v Pacific Energy Ltd and anor [2005] NSWIRComm 381

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the application under s 106 given the remuneration cap in s 108A(1)(a)
  2. 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.