FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCA 542
Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Rana v Google Inc (No 2) [2017] FCA 17 File number: SAD 25 of 2017 Judge: WHITE J Date of judgment: 19 May 2017 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal against refusal of leave to commence proceedings, refusal of leave to serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction and dismissal of the underlying proceedings on the basis that the Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine them had not been established – whether the applicant could bring an appeal against the refusal of leave to bring proceedings and to amend his interlocutory application – whether the applicant required leave to appeal the dismissal of proceedings on the basis of jurisdiction – consideration of the Court’s jurisdiction to deal with defamation actions against the respondent in circumstances in which a claim against a previous respondent under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) had been resolved – consideration of the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Court by the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) – held reasonably arguable that the trial Judge had erred in concluding that the applicant had not shown that the Court had jurisdiction.
Held: leave to appeal granted.
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5
Australian Consumer Law 2010 (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2) ss 18, 20, 21
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 19, 20(3)(a), 20(3)(c), 24(1A) , 24(1AA)(a), s 24(1D)(b), 31A, 32(1)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 9(3)
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Defamation Act 2005 (SA) s 21
Cases cited: Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212
Cabcharge Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 111
Crosby v Kelly [2012] FCAFC 96; (2012) 203 FCR 451
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Ferdinands v The State of South Australia [2017] FCA 32
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v ESSO Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 1572; (2000) 104 FCR 564
Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 60
Rana v Google Inc [2016] FCA 461
Residual Assco Group Ltd v Spalvins [2000] HCA 33; (2000) 202 CLR 629
Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2005] FCAFC 125; (2005) 144 FCR 379
Date of hearing: 2 May 2017 Registry: South Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 40 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear ORDERS
SAD 25 of 2017 BETWEEN: RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA
Applicant
AND: GOOGLE INC
Respondent
JUDGE:
WHITE J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 MAY 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave is granted to appeal against the orders made by…
Continue reading Rana v Google Inc
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCA 542
- Case
- [2017] FCA 542
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court found that the applicant had a reasonably arguable case for appeal, particularly in relation to the jurisdictional issues. The Court considered the Federal Court's jurisdiction to deal with defamation actions against Google Inc, in light of the resolution of a claim against a previous respondent under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The Court concluded that there was a reasonable arguability that the trial judge had erred in concluding that the applicant had not shown that the Court had jurisdiction. The Court's reasoning was based on the consideration of the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Court by the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).
Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal against the orders made by Charlesworth J on 25 January 2017 insofar as those orders dismissed the originating application filed on 28 October 2014 and dismissed the interlocutory applications filed on 3 November 2014 and 14 June 2016. The leave to appeal was confined to the seven grounds contained in the draft notice of appeal filed on 27 January 2017, and was to be exercised by 16 June 2017. The application was otherwise dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave is granted to appeal against the orders made by Charlesworth J on 25 January 2017 insofar as those orders dismissed the originating application filed on 28 October 2014 and dismissed the interlocutory applications filed on 3 November 2014 and 14 June 2016, save to the extent to which the interlocutory applications sought leave to bring proceedings under s 21 of the Defamation Act 2005 (SA) and to amend the Originating Application and Statement of Claim.
2. Subject to any further order by the Court, the leave to appeal is confined to the seven grounds contained in the draft notice of appeal filed on 27 January 2017, and is to be exercised by 16 June 2017.
3. The application is otherwise 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.