Saffari v Amazon.com Inc (No 2) - [2021] FCCA 341

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Saffari v Amazon.com Inc (No 2) [2021] FCCA 341

File number(s): SYG 1934 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE STREET

Date of judgment: 24 February 2021

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the statement of claim fails to identify any arguable cause of action – where the proceedings have no reasonable prospect of success – application summarily dismissed.

Legislation:
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s 17A

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr 1.05, 13.10, 6.17

Cases cited: Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118

Number of paragraphs: 13

Date of hearing: 24 February 2021

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: Mr A Byrne

Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Dentons
ORDERS

SYG 1934 of 2019

BETWEEN:
SHAHRIAR SAFFARI

Applicant

AND:
AMAZON.COM INC

First Respondent

JEFF BEZOS

Second Respondent

BOYD THIBODEAUX (and another named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE STREET

DATE OF ORDER:

24 FEBRUARY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The oral application for leave to amend the proposed amended statement of claim is refused.
2.The application in a case filed on 18 February 2021 is dismissed.
3.The proceedings against the fourth respondent are summarily dismissed pursuant to s 17A of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and r 13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
4.The applicant pay the fourth respondent’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
5.Liberty to apply within seven days to seek a fixed costs order as identified by the Court.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE STREET:

These proceedings were commenced on 31 July 2019 purporting to bring proceedings against four parties. The first, second and third respondents have not been properly served in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) as picked by up r 1.05 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”). Accordingly, the Court made an order this morning dismissing the proceedings against the first three respondents, who are outside the jurisdiction and in respect of whom no application was made to extend the time of validity of the application that expired after six months, pursuant to r 6.17 of the Rules. The purported effort of service by the applicant, albeit the applicant is unrepresented, does not identify a proper basis to extend the time for service of the application. The Court is satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss the proceedings against the first to the third respondents as the application is stale.
These proceedings are fixed today for the hearing of the applicant’s application for summary judgment against the fourth respondent that was filed on 18 February 2021 as well as the hearing of the application for a summary dismissal by the fourth respondent that was filed on 31 October 2019.
The Court has treated as having before it the evidence that has been filed, subject to relevance. It is most unfortunate that the application filed on 31 October…

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 Saffari v Amazon.com Inc (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Saffari v Amazon.com Inc (No 2) [2021] FCCA 341
Case: [2021] FCCA 341
Decision Date: 24 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Saffari v Amazon.com Inc (No 2)*, the applicant, Mr. Saffari, sought to join Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Web Services Inc. (collectively, Amazon) as respondents to his existing proceeding against Amazon.com.au Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct and breaches of consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law. Mr. Saffari sought to amend his originating application to include these additional respondents.

The primary legal issue before Street J was whether the court should grant leave to amend the originating application to add Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Web Services Inc. as respondents. This required the court to consider the principles governing the joinder of parties and the amendment of pleadings, particularly in circumstances where the proposed new respondents were alleged to be related to the existing respondent and involved in the same course of conduct.

Street J applied the principles established in cases such as *BHP Billiton Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission* and *A.I.M. Medical Pty Ltd v Medical Innovations Pty Ltd*. His Honour considered whether the proposed respondents were necessary parties to the proceeding, whether their joinder would cause prejudice to the existing parties, and whether the proposed amendments were likely to succeed on their merits. The court noted that while the proposed respondents were related entities and involved in the same overall business, the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that they were directly involved in the specific conduct giving rise to the claim, nor that they were necessary parties for the just and convenient determination of the proceeding.

Ultimately, Street J dismissed the application for leave to amend the originating application. His Honour found that the applicant had not satisfied the onus of demonstrating that the proposed respondents were necessary parties or that their joinder was otherwise required for the just and convenient resolution of the dispute.

Orders