International Management Group of America Pty Ltd v Media Niugini Ltd t/as Emtv

International Management Group of America Pty Ltd (IMG) brought proceedings against Media Niugini Ltd t/as Emtv (Emtv) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. IMG, an American company, alleged that Emtv, a Papua New Guinea (PNG) corporation, had breached an agreement for the supply of television content and related services. The dispute centred around whether the PNG court's service of the writ on Emtv was valid, whether the contract was made or entered into in Australia, if it was to be partly performed in Australia, and if it was governed by Australian law. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the claims had insufficient prospects of success to warrant requiring Emtv to defend the claim in New South Wales.

The primary legal issues revolved around the court's jurisdiction to hear the case. IMG argued that the contract was made or entered into in Australia and was to be partly performed in Australia. They also contended that the contract was governed by Australian law and that the claims had sufficient prospects of success. Emtv, however, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the writ being served outside Australia on a PNG corporation, and that the claims had insufficient prospects of success to warrant requiring them to defend in New South Wales.

The court held that the writ was validly served on Emtv in PNG, as authorised by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that the contract was not made or entered into in Australia, nor was it to be partly performed in Australia. Furthermore, the contract was governed by PNG law. Consequently, the court determined that the claims had insufficient prospects of success to warrant requiring Emtv to defend the claim in New South Wales. The court dismissed the proceeding with costs.

IMG's claims were dismissed, and costs were awarded to Emtv. The court found that the service of the writ was valid, but the jurisdictional criteria were not met. The contract's creation, performance, and governing law were all outside Australia, leading to the conclusion that the New South Wales court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.