Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (Stay Application)

The case involved an application by Carnival plc (the respondents) to stay the claims of a sub-group of passengers who had booked their voyages on the Ruby Princess cruise ship. The passengers, represented by Mr Ho and Mrs Wright, alleged contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) sections 18, 29, 60, and 61. The respondents sought to stay the sub-group members' claims on the basis of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a class action waiver clause found in their US terms and conditions. The dispute required the court to determine whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause was valid and applicable, and if not, whether the Federal Court was an inappropriate forum for the ACL claims.

The court needed to decide several legal issues, including whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause was effectively incorporated into the passengers' contracts, whether the US District Courts had jurisdiction over the ACL claims, and if the Federal Court was an appropriate forum for such claims. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the class action waiver clause was unfair and unenforceable, and if a stay was an appropriate remedy. The court also needed to decide whether the interlocutory application raised common questions of law that should be decided in the representative proceeding.

In its reasoning, the court held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was not effectively incorporated into the contracts because the passengers were not adequately notified of the terms. The court found that the clause did not apply to the passengers, and that the US District Courts would likely not exercise jurisdiction over the ACL claims. The court also found that the Federal Court was not a clearly inappropriate forum for the ACL claims. Regarding the class action waiver clause, the court held that it was an unfair term and unenforceable under the ACL. However, the court noted that a stay might still be an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

The court ordered the parties to liaise with the associate to arrange a hearing to consider the form of orders to be made on the respondents' amended interlocutory application. The parties were required to confer and agree on the form of orders, and if they could not agree, they were to file and serve their proposed orders and written submissions at least two days before the hearing.