Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 2) - [2022] FCA 674

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 2) [2022] FCA 674

File number: NSD 195 of 2021

Judgment of: CHEESEMAN J

Date of judgment: 8 June 2022

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – lodgement for filing of interlocutory application for specific discovery – where the applicant seeks specific discovery from the fourth respondent, a former director of Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd, an Australian subsidiary of Amazon – where substantive proceedings concern an application for leave to appeal in respect of two interlocutory decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia) – where proposed interlocutory application is not supported by an affidavit or other evidence – whether interlocutory application should be accepted for filing – Held: Order made under r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the Registrar refuse to accept for filing the interlocutory application for specific discovery in the leave to appeal proceedings.

Legislation:
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37M

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 1.37, 20.11, 20.13

Cases cited: Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc [2022] FCA 535

Division: General Division

Registry: New South Wales

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs: 9

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

ORDERS

NSD 195 of 2021

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:

CHEESEMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JUNE 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Registrar refuse to accept for filing the applicant’s interlocutory application dated 1 June 2022 seeking orders for discovery pursuant to r 20.13 of Rules.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CHEESEMAN J:

On 1 June 2022, the applicant, Shahriar Saffari, lodged an interlocutory application with the Registry for filing. The proposed interlocutory application seeks an order, in effect, for specific discovery from the fourth respondent, Rocco Braeuniger (as written):
1.Pursuant to Rule 20.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, The Court order that within a period fixed by the Court, the Fourth Respondent provide the following Information:
a)   The Name of the individual(s) that complained to Amazon regarding the Book.
b)   The town/city where the Complainant(s) reside.
c)   The relevant department within Amazon office in Sydney that divulged the Applicant’s personal information to the complainant.
I made an order under r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the Registrar refuse to accept for filing the applicant’s interlocutory application. These are my reasons for doing so.
Mr Saffari is a self-represented litigant who seeks leave to appeal from two interlocutory decisions dismissing proceedings commenced by him against four respondents in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia). A summary of the Circuit Court proceedings is included in…

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) [2022] FCA 674
Case: [2022] FCA 674
Decision Date: 8 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 2) concerns an interlocutory application for specific discovery. The applicant sought discovery from a former director of an Australian subsidiary of Amazon, the fourth respondent, in proceedings concerning an application for leave to appeal two interlocutory decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The application was lodged for filing without supporting affidavit or evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the interlocutory application could be accepted for filing in the absence of an affidavit or other evidence. The court had to determine if the application was adequately supported to warrant consideration. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the absence of the necessary evidence could be justified or if it necessitated refusal under Rule 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

In reaching its decision, the court considered the procedural requirements outlined in the Federal Court Rules. It was noted that the Rules mandate that applications be supported by appropriate evidence, and the absence of such evidence could result in the application not being accepted for filing. The court found that the applicant had failed to provide the necessary affidavit or evidence to substantiate the application, thereby failing to meet the procedural requirements. Consequently, the court made an order under Rule 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the Registrar refuse to accept for filing the interlocutory application. The order specifically directed that the Registrar should not accept the application dated 1 June 2022 for filing due to the lack of supporting affidavit or evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Registrar refuse to accept for filing the applicant’s interlocutory application dated 1 June 2022 seeking orders for discovery pursuant to r 20.13 of Rules.

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.

File number:	NSD 195 of 2021
Judgment of:	CHEESEMAN J
Date of judgment:	8 June 2022
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – lodgement for filing of interlocutory application for specific discovery – where the applicant seeks specific discovery from the fourth respondent, a former director of Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd, an Australian subsidiary of Amazon – where substantive proceedings concern an application for leave to appeal in respect of two interlocutory decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia) – where proposed interlocutory application is not supported by an affidavit or other evidence – whether interlocutory application should be accepted for filing – Held: Order made under r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the Registrar refuse to accept for filing the interlocutory application for specific discovery in the leave to appeal proceedings.
Legislation:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37M Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 1.37, 20.11, 20.13
Cases cited:	Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc [2022] FCA 535
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs:	9
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers

ORDER MADE BY:	CHEESEMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 JUNE 2022