Proceeding and each of the considerations which

Info icon This 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
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
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
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
Image of page 48
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern