Rana v Google Inc

Case [2022] FCA 877

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rana v Google Inc [2022] FCA 877

Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal:  Rana v Google Inc [2021] FCA 1360; and Rana v Google Inc (orders and extempore reasons of 3 November 2021)
File number: SAD 198 of 2021
Judgment of: BANKS-SMITH J
Date of judgment: 27 July 2022
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal from interlocutory orders - where applicant sought orders including leave to serve originating application and statement of claim out of the jurisdiction - where programming orders made at first case management hearing - where judge timetabled filing of affidavit and submissions and delivered judgment before last date for filing - where judgment delivered prior to date anticipated by orders - where applicant had already filed affidavit and submissions - whether denial of procedural fairness - whether decision attended with sufficient doubt to justify reconsideration by appellate court - whether substantial injustice if leave refused

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal from interlocutory orders - where competing interlocutory applications brought raising issues as to purportedly vexatious content of numerous affidavits - where judge proposed orders in advance of hearing for consideration of parties - where statement of claim struck out at case management hearing and regime implemented for filing of concise statement with leave - objectives of case management - whether denial of procedural fairness
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 37M, 37N
Cases cited:

Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 101; (2010) 187 FCR 261

Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397

Duffy v Google LLC [2019] SASC 157

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Rana v Registrar Cridland [2021] FCA 848

RidolfivRigato Farms Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 292; [2001] 2 Qd R 455

SZVCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 24; (2016) 238 FCR 15

TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 83; (2014) 232 FCR 361

Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538
Division: General Division
Registry: South Australia
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs: 74
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Appellant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Third Respondent: The Third Respondent appeared in person
Counsel for the First, Second and Fourth to Sixth Respondents: The First, Second and Fourth to Sixth Respondents did not appear

ORDERS

SAD 198 of 2021
BETWEEN:

RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA

Appellant
AND:

GOOGLE INC

First Respondent

AUTOMATTIC INC

Second Respondent

JANICE DUFFY

Third Respondent

DARDA GREGUREV
Fourth Respondent

NINA GREGUREV
Fifth Respondent

MICROSOFT CORPORATION INC
Sixth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

BANKS-SMITH J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 JULY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal from the two sets of orders of the Court made 3 November 2021 is dismissed.

Note:   Entry of…

Continue reading Rana v Google Inc

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rana v Google Inc [2022] FCA 877
Case
[2022] FCA 877
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rana v Google Inc, the applicant, Mr Rana, sought leave to appeal from interlocutory orders made by the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute involved Mr Rana's application for leave to serve his originating application and statement of claim out of the jurisdiction and various programming orders made during a case management hearing. The legal issues before the court included whether the denial of procedural fairness had occurred and if the decisions sought to be appealed were attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by an appellate court.

The court considered the procedural fairness argument, noting that the judge had timetabled the filing of affidavits and submissions and delivered judgment before the last date for filing. The court found that the applicant had already filed his affidavit and submissions, and therefore, the judge's decision did not result in a denial of procedural fairness. Regarding the other issues, the court found no sufficient doubt in the decisions to warrant reconsideration by an appellate court. Furthermore, the court was of the view that substantial injustice would not result if leave were refused, even if the decision was wrong. The court also highlighted that appeal courts should be especially cautious when interfering with decisions made on matters of practice and procedure.

In light of the above, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised that Mr Rana remained open to making a further application, based on proper and probative materials. The court also noted that no party had formally sought costs relating to the application for leave to appeal, although Dr Duffy had an interest in the proceeding as a party to the case management hearing orders the subject of the application for leave to appeal. The court considered it appropriate to deal with the application on the papers, given the number of written submissions that had been filed and the nature of the application.

ORDERS:
1. The application for leave to appeal from the two sets of orders of the Court made 3 November 2021 is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal from the two sets of orders of the Court made 3 November 2021 is dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

It remains open to Mr Rana to make a further application, based on proper and probative materials. The primary judge anticipated this by granting liberty to apply.Conclusion For those reasons I do not consider that the decisions sought to be appealed from are attended by sufficient doubt to warrant them being reconsidered by an appellate court. Nor am I satisfied that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong. Accordingly the application for leave is dismissed. I also take into account that appeal courts should be especially circumspect about interfering with decisions made on matters of practice and procedure: RidolfivRigato Farms Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 292; [2001] 2 Qd R 455 at [23] (de Jersey CJ), [26] (McPherson JA agreeing), [30] (Williams J agreeing); and Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 101; (2010) 187 FCR 261 at [22]. Even if there were some arguable error in his Honour's procedural decisions, the grant of leave to appeal would not in all the circumstances be appropriate. No party has formally sought costs relating to the application for leave to appeal. Dr Duffy had an interest in the proceeding as a party to the case management hearing orders the subject of the application for leave to appeal. Dr Duffy filed submissions and an affidavit, although they have not been determinative of any of the matters in this application for leave. Dr Duffy was also copied into the relevant correspondence relating to the hearing of the application. If any party (apart from Mr Rana) seeks orders as to costs, they should write to my chambers within seven days and I will address any such request as appropriate. Finally, I note that this application was determined on the papers. Mr Rana requested that it be dealt with on the papers. Dr Duffy had indicated she would appear at any hearing, but in the end agreed that the matter could proceed on the papers. In those circumstances, and having regard to the number of written submissions that had been filed and the nature of this application, I considered it appropriate to agree to Mr Rana's request.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.