Kennedy Miller Mitchell Films Pty Limited v Warner Bros. Feature Productions Pty Limited
Case
•
[2017] NSWSC 1526
•09 November 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kennedy Miller Mitchell Films Pty Limited v Warner Bros. Feature Productions Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 1526
[2017] NSWSC 1526
09 November 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kennedy Miller Mitchell Films Pty Limited and Village Roadshow Limited (the plaintiffs) sued Warner Bros. Feature Productions Pty Limited (the first defendant) and Warner Bros. Pictures Australia Pty Limited (the second defendant) over the production and distribution of the motion picture Mad Max-Fury Road. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendants had breached the contract between the parties and sought damages for that breach. The first defendant applied for an order that it and the plaintiffs be referred to arbitration in California. It also sought an order that the plaintiffs’ claims be stayed on forum non conveniens grounds. The plaintiffs opposed both applications.
The court considered whether the plaintiffs and the first defendant had agreed to arbitrate the dispute. The court also considered whether an arbitration clause in Certificates of Employment signed by the first plaintiff, the first defendant and two directors of the first plaintiff applied to the dispute. Finally, the court considered whether the law of California was to be applied in the dispute.
The court found that the Letter Agreement between the parties did not include an arbitration provision. It found that the arbitration clause in the Certificates of Employment did not cover the dispute. The court found that questions of stay on other grounds did not arise because it found that the plaintiffs and the first defendant had not agreed to arbitrate the dispute.
The court dismissed the first defendant’s application for an order referring it and the plaintiffs to arbitration in California. It dismissed the first defendant’s application for an order staying the proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds.
The court considered whether the plaintiffs and the first defendant had agreed to arbitrate the dispute. The court also considered whether an arbitration clause in Certificates of Employment signed by the first plaintiff, the first defendant and two directors of the first plaintiff applied to the dispute. Finally, the court considered whether the law of California was to be applied in the dispute.
The court found that the Letter Agreement between the parties did not include an arbitration provision. It found that the arbitration clause in the Certificates of Employment did not cover the dispute. The court found that questions of stay on other grounds did not arise because it found that the plaintiffs and the first defendant had not agreed to arbitrate the dispute.
The court dismissed the first defendant’s application for an order referring it and the plaintiffs to arbitration in California. It dismissed the first defendant’s application for an order staying the proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Arbitration Agreement
-
Contract Formation
-
Stay of Proceedings
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Warner Bros Feature Productions Pty Ltd v Kennedy Miller Mitchell Films Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 81
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
1
Russo v Aiello
[2003] HCA 53
Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 8
Russo v Aiello
[2003] HCA 53