Legal Research
Cases
Pocock v Universal City Studios LLC

Pocock v Universal City Studios LLC

Case [2012] NSWSC 1481 29 November 2012

Jurisdiction

Res Judicata

Foreign Law Governing Liability

Conflict of Laws

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pocock v Universal City Studios LLC [2012] NSWSC 1481
Hearing dates: 19 November 2012
Decision date: 29 November 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
1. The applications to set aside the amended statement of claim and to permanently stay the proceedings are refused.
2. The proceedings are stayed until such time as a further amended statement of claim is filed and served on the defendant giving effect to the concessions made by the plaintiff..
3. The parties have liberty to apply on 7 days' notice in respect of costs.

Catchwords: PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - application to stay proceedings - application to set aside originating process - clearly inappropriate forum test - foreign law governing liability - cost and inconvenience
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Supreme Court Rules 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: CSR Limited v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd [1997] HCA 33; (1997) 189 CLR 345
Garsec v His Majesty The Sultan of Brunei [2008] NSWCA 211; (2008) 250 ALR 268
Murakami v Wiryadi [2010] NSWCA 7; (2010) 268 ALR 377
Neilson v Overseas Project Corp of Victoria [2005] HCA 54; (2005) 223 CLR 331
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay [1998] HCA 32; (1988) 165 CLR 197
Puttick v Tenon Ltd [2008] HCA 54; (2008) 238 CLR 265
Regie Nationale des Usines Renault v Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55; (1990) 171 CLR 538
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Lorraine Margret Pocock (Plaintiff)
Universal City Studios LLC (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Campbell SC and Mr Meakes (Plaintiff)
Mr Morris (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Bryan Gorman & Co (Plaintiff)
Norton Rose Australia (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/00396945

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Loraine Pocock claims that she suffered injury when she slipped on an escalator when visiting Universal Studios in California on 12 December 2009. She claims damages from Universal Studios. They say that it is inappropriate that the proceedings be conducted here; they should be conducted in California. They have applied for Ms Pocock's statement of claim to be set aside or that the proceedings be permanently stayed. In my view this Court is not an inappropriate forum for the proceedings and the application is refused.

The application to set aside the statement of claim is brought pursuant to rr 11.7(2)(b) and 12.11(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ("UCPR"). The alternative application to permanently stay the proceedings is pursuant to s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Ms Pocock initiated proceedings by filing a statement of claim on 8 December 2011. An Amended Statement of Claim was filed on 23 March 2012 so as to correctly identify the defendant as Universal City Studios LLC ("Universal").

In her Amended Statement of Claim, Ms Pocock pleads that she suffered injury,…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Pocock v Universal City Studios LLC

Details

AGLC: Pocock v Universal City Studios LLC [2012] NSWSC 1481
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1481
Decision Date: 29 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Pocock and Universal City Studios LLC was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centres on an allegation that Pocock, an Australian resident, engaged in copyright infringement by uploading and downloading content protected by copyright through a peer-to-peer file sharing network. The defendants, Universal City Studios LLC, are an American corporation that owns a copyright in motion picture works. Pocock sought to have the proceedings stayed or the originating process set aside on the basis that the court was a clearly inappropriate forum for the trial of the action, given the significant cost and inconvenience to him in having to litigate in Australia. The court was required to consider whether the application to stay or set aside the originating process should be granted, and whether the forum non conveniens doctrine applied.

The court considered whether the case could be characterised as one that was antagonising Australian interests, and whether there was an alternative forum where the dispute could be more conveniently tried. The court held that there was no evidence that the proceedings were antagonising Australian interests, and that the United States was an available and appropriate forum for the trial of the action. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the United States was an inappropriate forum, and that the application to stay or set aside the originating process should be dismissed.

The court held that the plaintiff had not discharged the burden of showing that the United States was a clearly inappropriate forum. The court found that the United States was an appropriate forum for the trial of the action, and that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the proceedings should be stayed or the originating process set aside. The court noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the United States was an inappropriate forum, and that the plaintiff had not shown that the United States was an inadequate forum. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the proceedings in the United States would be significantly more convenient for him.

The court dismissed the application to stay or set aside the originating process. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the United States was an inappropriate forum, and that the proceedings should be stayed or the originating process set aside. The court held that the plaintiff had not discharged the burden of showing that the United States was a clearly inappropriate forum, and that the proceedings should be stayed or the originating process set aside. The court held that the plaintiff had not shown that the proceedings in the United States would be significantly more convenient for him, and that the United States was an appropriate forum for the trial of the action.

Orders