FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rana v Google Inc (No 3) [2018] FCA 2088
File number: SAD 286 of 2014 Judge: CHARLESWORTH J Date of judgment: 20 December 2018 Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AO
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.40, 10.43, 26.01
Cases cited: ALA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 30
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR 135
Rana v Google Inc [2016] FCA 461
Rana v Google Inc (2017) 254 FCR 1
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Registry: South Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 25 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear ORDERS
SAD 286 of 2014 BETWEEN: RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA
Applicant
AND: GOOGLE INC
Respondent
JUDGE:
CHARLESWORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 DECEMBER 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The matter be referred to the National Operations Registrar for allocation to a judge other than Charlesworth J.
2.The matter be set down for a further case management conference at a date to be fixed by the National Operations Registrar.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CHARLESWORTH J:
For the reasons that follow, I consider it necessary and appropriate to disqualify myself from further presiding in this proceeding.
In this action Mr Rana originally named two respondents, the Commonwealth of Australia and Google Inc. Google is a foreign corporation having its place of incorporation in the United States of America. It is the only remaining respondent. Mr Rana requires the leave of the Court to serve his initiating documents in the proceeding on Google outside of Australia: r 10.43(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Mr Rana sought leave by an interlocutory application dated 3 November 2014 (the 2014 application) and has since filed further applications for the same relief.
In 2014, these proceedings were before Mansfield J. By orders made on 6 May 2016, his Honour stood the 2014 application over to a date to be fixed: Rana v Google Inc [2016] FCA 461 at [45]. The matter was then allocated to me with the 2014 application yet to be determined.
Mansfield J determined (at [40]) that the initiating documents Mr Rana sought to serve upon Google were not sufficiently clear and precise as to fairly require Google to plead to them. His Honour afforded Mr Rana the opportunity to file amended initiating documents. On 14 June 2016, Mr Rana filed documents titled “Amended Statement of Claim” and “Amended Originating Application”.
The 2014 application was determined by me by reference to the proposed amended documents. I concluded that although the proposed…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Rana v Google Inc (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] FCA 2088
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the circumstances in which an Australian court might decline to hear a claim on the basis that proceedings were already underway in a foreign jurisdiction. It considered whether the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently connected to Australia to warrant the court exercising its jurisdiction. The court also considered whether the Australian proceedings would prejudice the outcome of the overseas proceedings, and whether the plaintiff had a real prospect of success in the Australian proceedings.
The court found that the plaintiff's claims were justiciable, but that the matter should be referred to the National Operations Registrar for allocation to a different judge. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently connected to Australia to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction, and that there was no real risk of prejudice to the overseas proceedings. However, the court also found that the plaintiff's claims had little or no prospect of success, and that it would be in the interests of justice for the matter to be stayed pending the outcome of the overseas proceedings. The court ordered that the matter be referred to the National Operations Registrar for allocation to a different judge, and that a further case management conference be held to consider the stay of the proceedings.
No further orders were made by the court in this instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The matter be referred to the National Operations Registrar for allocation to a judge other than Charlesworth J.
2. The matter be set down for a further case management conference at a date to be fixed by the National Operations Registrar.
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.