{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Proceeding and each of the considerations which

Info iconThis preview shows pages 45–48. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
proceeding and each of the considerations which Grünenthal asserts constitutes vexation, oppression and an abuse of process, it cannot be said that Victoria is a clearly inappropriate forum or that the proceeding should be stayed. Grünenthal’s application for a stay must be dismissed ” per Beach J at para 39 45
Background image of page 45

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Rowe v Grünenthal & Ors Key Issue raised by second and thirdnamed Defendants: proceedings should be set aside on the basis of non-compliance with r 7.02 (i.e, indorsement of service outside Australia) Writ was serviced together with indorsement headed: Indorsement for service out of Australia This writ is to be served on the defendants under rules 7.01(i) and 7.01(j) of the Supreme Court Rules as it is: (a) founded on a tort committed within Victoria; and/or (b) brought in respect of damage suffered wholly or partly in Victoria and caused by a tortious act or omission wherever occurring, as pleaded and particularised in the accompanying statement of claim”. 46
Background image of page 46
Rowe v Grünenthal & Ors “There are many ways the plaintiff could have drawn the service indorsement in this case. For example, instead of the six line indorsement actually drawn, the plaintiff could have drawn a six page document setting out every conceivable fact, sub-fact, nuance and characterisation of the facts referred to.” “The fact that one is capable of drawing an indorsement in great detail does not mean that a less detailed document which incorporates the facts in the statement of claim is not also capable of amounting to compliance with the rules .... the purpose of the service indorsement is to give a defendant notice of the grounds on which a plaintiff claims to be entitled to serve originating process out of the jurisdiction. The rules are not an end in themselves. Much less is it their function to create disputes for no productive purpose.” “In my view, the service indorsement complies with rule 7.02 by identifying the paragraphs of rule 7.01 relied upon and by incorporating by specific reference the relevant facts from the statement of claim” per Beach J at paras 50-51. 47
Background image of page 47

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Rowe v Grünenthal & Ors Recent settlement announced in July 2012 against Diageo and Distillers; proceedings continuing against Grunenthal – trial listed for 2013. For background, see: http://www.news.com.au/national/melbournes-lynny-rowe-wins 48
Background image of page 48
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}