Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd

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.