Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd - [2015] NSWSC 906

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd [2015] NSWSC 906
Hearing dates: 23 June 2015
Date of orders: 10 July 2015
Decision date: 10 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Robb J
Decision:
(1)   The defendants’ amended notice of motion is dismissed.

(2)   The parties are directed to deliver submissions as to the appropriate costs order to be made (having regard to the dismissal of the defendants’ amended notice of motion and the matters considered in pars 12 and 13 of these reasons for judgment) to the associate to Robb J within 14 days.

(3)   The plaintiff is directed to file and serve an amended statement of claim (having regard to the matter considered in par 12 of these reasons for judgment) within 14 days.
(4)   Exhibits may be returned forthwith in accordance with the rules of the Court.
Catchwords: PROCEDURE – motion for originating process to be set aside pursuant to UCPR rr 11.7 and 12.11 – whether plaintiff established claims fall within one of the heads of extra-territorial jurisdiction in UCPR Schedule 6 – whether requisite degree of satisfaction that proceedings founded on breach of contract in this State or subject-matter of proceedings is a contract in respect of a breach committed in this State – test is whether party has a “good arguable case” – quasi-contractual obligations on basis of money had and received – claims satisfy UCPR Schedule 6 – whether this Court is an inappropriate forum – held no other forum evident as clearly more appropriate – no unfair or significant imposition on defendants – motion dismissed
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552
Bank of America v Bank of New York [1994] NSWCA 17; [1995] ATPR 41-390
Barach v University of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 431
Coates v Charles Porter & Sons Pty Ltd (1990) 2 ACSR 733
FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Ocean Marine Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (1997) 41 NSWLR 559
Huddart Parker Ltd v Ship Mill Hill (1950) 81 CLR 502
Kim Michael Productions Pty Ltd v Tropical Islands Management Ltd [2010] NSWSC 269
Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd v PRC Inc (1993) 44 FCR 88 at 95
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197
Schweitzer v Kronen Verwaltungs GmbH [1998] VSC 190
The Eleftheria [1970] P 94
Vitkovice Horni A Hutni Tezirstvo v Korner [1951] AC 869; [1951] 2 All ER 334
Texts Cited: Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia (9th ed.)
Ritchie’s Uniform Civil Procedure NSW (loose leaf service)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Gary Benson (plaintiff)
Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (first defendant)
Rational Group Limited (second defendant)
Oldford Group Limited (third defendant)
Rational FT Limited (fourth defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: M W Young SC/M Gunning (plaintiff)
A Zahra (first – fourth defendants)
Solicitors: Miedzinski Lawyers (plaintiff)
Addisons (first – fourth defendants)

File Number(s): 2014/336109
Publication restriction: None

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWSC 906
Decision Date: 10 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Benson sought to set aside an originating process on the grounds that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia lacked jurisdiction over the claims. The plaintiff contended that the court had no jurisdiction as the claims did not fall within any of the heads of extra-territorial jurisdiction as outlined in the UCPR Schedule 6. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had quasi-contractual obligations based on money had and received and that the court had jurisdiction over the claims.

The court considered whether the plaintiff had established that the claims fell within one of the heads of extra-territorial jurisdiction. The court noted that the test for establishing jurisdiction in this context was whether the plaintiff had a "good arguable case" that the proceedings were founded on a breach of contract in the State or that the subject-matter of the proceedings was a contract in respect of a breach committed in the State. The court held that the plaintiff had satisfied the requisite degree of satisfaction on the jurisdictional issue. The court also considered whether this Court was an inappropriate forum, but found that no other forum was evident as clearly more appropriate and that there would be no unfair or significant imposition on the defendants if the Court exercised its jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the originating process. The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the requisite degree of satisfaction that the claims fell within one of the heads of extra-territorial jurisdiction and that the court was not an inappropriate forum. The court held that it had jurisdiction over the claims and that the motion to set aside the originating process was dismissed.

Orders