HNOE Limited v Angus & Julia Stone Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 271
Hearing dates:
23 October 2024
Date of orders:
19 November 2024
Decision date:
19 November 2024
Before:
Bell CJ at [1]; Leeming JA at [118]; Payne JA at [124]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal allowed with costs.
(3) Set aside the orders of the primary judge and in lieu thereof, order that:
(a) the proceedings be stayed;
(b) the plaintiffs be ordered to pay the costs of the notice of motion filed on 15 March 2024.
Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – Whether the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of statutory duty should not have been summarily dismissed – Where availability of action was a pure question of law involving no questions of fact and admitting of only one correct answer – Whether, in circumstances of particular case, there was utility in determining issue on a summary basis
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – Stay of proceedings – Exclusive jurisdiction clause – Where jurisdiction clause was elliptical in that its scope or extent was not spelt out – Where not all parties to proceedings bound by clause – Whether stay should still be granted – “Non-parties” and non-parties –Whether strong reasons not to give effect to exclusive jurisdiction clause through a stay of proceedings
TORTS – Breach of statutory duty – Entertainment Industry Act 2013 (NSW), s 11 – Whether the legislature intended to create a private cause of action for breach of statutory duty – Where statute provided a range of remedies – No intention to create a private cause of action – Summary dismissal of claims for breach of statutory duty
[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.
Continue reading HNOE Limited v Angus & Julia Stone Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
HNOE Limited v Angus & Julia Stone Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 271
Case
[2024] NSWCA 271
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
HNOE Limited (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against orders made by a primary judge. The appeal concerned claims brought by Angus & Julia Stone Pty Ltd (the respondents) for breach of statutory duty under section 11 of the *Entertainment Industry Act 2013* (NSW), and a cross-appeal concerning a stay of proceedings based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The primary judge had dismissed the respondents' claims for breach of statutory duty summarily.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the respondents' claims for breach of statutory duty under section 11 of the *Entertainment Industry Act 2013* (NSW) should have been summarily dismissed. This involved considering whether the legislature intended to create a private cause of action for breach of that statutory duty, particularly given the remedies already provided by the statute. Additionally, the court had to consider whether to grant a stay of proceedings based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause, even though the clause was elliptical in its scope and not all parties to the proceedings were bound by it, and whether there were strong reasons not to give effect to the clause.
The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge erred in summarily dismissing the claims for breach of statutory duty. Their Honours reasoned that the *Entertainment Industry Act 2013* (NSW) did not intend to create a private cause of action for breach of section 11, as the statute provided a range of other remedies. Consequently, the claims for breach of statutory duty were not maintainable. Regarding the stay of proceedings, the court found that the exclusive jurisdiction clause, despite its limitations, was sufficiently clear to warrant a stay, and there were no strong reasons not to give effect to it.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal with costs, and set aside the orders of the primary judge. In lieu thereof, the court ordered that the proceedings be stayed and that the respondents pay the costs of the notice of motion filed on 15 March 2024.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal allowed with costs.
(3) Set aside the orders of the primary judge and in lieu thereof, order that:
(a) the proceedings be stayed;
(b) the plaintiffs be ordered to pay the costs of the notice of motion filed on 15 March 2024.