Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 4)

Case [2022] FCA 1132

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 4) [2022] FCA 1132  

File number: NSD 195 of 2021
Judgment of: CHEESEMAN J
Date of judgment: 23 September 2022 
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal two interlocutory decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia) – where applicant alleges denial of procedural fairness in Circuit Court proceedings – whether primary judgments attended by sufficient doubt to warrant grant of leave – whether substantial injustice would result from a refusal of leave – Held: application dismissed with costs.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a temporary stay pending application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from interlocutory judgment in relation to issues of service – where the prospect that special leave would be granted was poor based on the substance of the applicant’s argument and in circumstances where the proposed appeal concerned an issue of practice and procedure – where the balance of convenience favoured the stay being refused – where the judgments in the Circuit Court are not final determinations of the applicant’s claims – whether the interests of justice served by granting a stay – Held: application refused.

Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 23

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 1.32

Cases cited:

Burnett v Browne (No 2) [2019] FCA 1597

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki [2022] FCAFC 96

Jennings Construction Limited v Burgundy Royale Investments Proprietary Limited (1986) 161 CLR 681; [1986] HCA 84

National Road Transport Association Ltd v Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 58

Obeid v The Queen (2016) 90 ALJR 447; [2016] HCA 9

Shaw v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Australian Financial Security Authority [2022] FCA 775

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 55
Date of hearing: 28 July 2022
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Third Respondent: The Third Respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: Mr A Byrne
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Dentons

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:

23 SEPTEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the fourth respondent.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CHEESEMAN J:
INTRODUCTION

  1. Shahriar Saffari, the applicant, seeks leave to appeal from two interlocutory decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia): Saffari v Amazon.com Inc

Continue reading Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 4)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 4) [2022] FCA 1132
Case
[2022] FCA 1132
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 4), the applicant, Mr Saffari, sought leave to appeal two interlocutory decisions made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia) in relation to a proceeding against several respondents, including Amazon.com, Inc., Jeff Bezos, Boyd Thibodeaux, and Rocco Braeuniger. The primary dispute concerned allegations of denial of procedural fairness in the Circuit Court proceedings and the sufficiency of the primary judgments to warrant an appeal. The application was brought before the Federal Court to determine whether the judgments were attended by sufficient doubt to justify granting leave for an appeal and whether refusing leave would result in substantial injustice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Circuit Court judgments contained sufficient doubt to warrant an appeal and whether a refusal of leave would lead to a substantial injustice. The court examined the procedural fairness allegations and the adherence to the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) concerning the service of the proceedings. It also assessed whether the Circuit Court's dismissal of the proceeding against all respondents was justified based on the rules and whether Mr Saffari's attempt to amend his pleading was properly refused.

The court found that the Circuit Court's dismissal of the proceeding was appropriate because Mr Saffari's service attempts were not in accordance with the relevant rules, and the proceedings against Amazon, Bezos, and Thibodeaux were dismissed due to non-compliance with the service time frame. The court further determined that the primary judge's refusal of Mr Saffari's application to amend the pleading was justified since the proposed amendment did not reveal a prima facie cause of action. The court concluded that the Circuit Court's decisions were not attended by sufficient doubt and that denying leave would not result in substantial injustice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Mr Saffari was ordered to pay the costs of the fourth respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the fourth respondent.

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

The fourth respondent, Rocco Braeuniger, is a former director of Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd (ACS). ACS is not a party to these proceedings and was not a party to the Circuit Court proceedings. He was a director of ACS between September 2017 and October 2019. Mr Braeuniger is the only respondent who appeared in these proceedings and was the only respondent who appeared in the Circuit Court proceedings. ACS was registered in Victoria and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com Sales, Inc., a company based in Delaware, USA. Amazon is recorded as ACS’s ultimate holding company in the relevant ASIC search. There is no evidence before the Court of the structure of the shareholdings between Amazon.com Sales, Inc. and Amazon, or as to any interrelationships between the directors and officeholders or management of ACS, Amazon.com Sales, Inc. and Amazon. The interlocutory decisions the subject of the leave application The Circuit Court proceedings were originally allocated to his Honour Judge Dowdy. Pursuant to an order of Judge Dowdy on 27 September 2019, Mr Saffari filed a document styled as “Draft Statement of Claim” (DSOC). Then, on 20 January 2020, without leave, Mr Saffari filed a document styled as “Statement of Claim” (ASOC). This document annexed various material including primary documents, such as emails and printed copies of webpages. At some point, the proceedings came to be listed before his Honour Judge Street, the primary judge. On 24 February 2021, the Circuit Court proceedings were fixed for hearing of Mr Braeuniger’s application for summary dismissal (which had been filed on 31 October 2019) and for Mr Saffari’s application for summary judgment against Mr Braeuniger (which had been filed on 18 February 2021). The hearing on 24 February 2021 before the primary judge culminated in two sets of orders being made, with two separate reasons for judgment being delivered, with the result that the proceedings were dismissed against all respondents. The proceedings against Amazon, Mr Bezos and Mr Thibodeaux were dismissed on the basis that the proceedings had not been served within 12 months as required by r 6.17 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), and, accordingly, the proceedings were stale as against Amazon, Mr Bezos and Mr Thibodeaux: PJ at [5]. The primary judge noted that Mr Saffari believed that he had taken steps to effect service but found that the steps taken by Mr Saffari were not in accordance with the relevant rules: PJ at [3]. The primary judge declined to extend the time for the validity of the “application”: PJ at [4]. Later on the same day, the primary judge made further orders which included an order refusing an oral application by Mr Saffari for leave to amend what was described as the proposed amended statement of claim. These orders also included an order summarily dismissing the proceedings against Mr Braeuniger on the basis that the pleading did not reveal a prima facie cause of action, and, accordingly, Mr Saffari did not have a reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s 17A of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and r 13.10 of the Circuit Court Rules: PJ2. Mr Braeuniger was represented by counsel at the hearing on 24 February 2021. Interlocutory application in relation to service

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Amazon is a foreign corporation for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Amazon is registered in the United States of America (USA) as a foreign profit corporation. It was incorporated in Delaware, USA and has its principal office in Seattle, Washington, USA. It has a registered agent, with an address in Tumwater, Washington, USA. Mr Bezos is the founder of Amazon and one of the 17 governors of the company. The third respondent, Boyd Thibodeaux, is described as a “CreateSpace” customer relations executive. During the hearing, Mr Saffari abandoned his application for leave to appeal from the judgment insofar as it concerned Mr Thibodeaux. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal from the part of the Circuit Court judgment that relates to Mr Thibodeaux will be dismissed. The fourth respondent, Rocco Braeuniger, is a former director of Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd (ACS). ACS is not a party to these proceedings and was not a party to the Circuit Court proceedings. He was a director of ACS between September 2017 and October 2019. Mr Braeuniger is the only respondent who appeared in these proceedings and was the only respondent who appeared in the Circuit Court proceedings. ACS was registered in Victoria and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com Sales, Inc., a company based in Delaware, USA. Amazon is recorded as ACS’s ultimate holding company in the relevant ASIC search. There is no evidence before the Court of the structure of the shareholdings between Amazon.com Sales, Inc. and Amazon, or as to any interrelationships between the directors and officeholders or management of ACS, Amazon.com Sales, Inc. and Amazon. The interlocutory decisions the subject of the leave application The Circuit Court proceedings were originally allocated to his Honour Judge Dowdy. Pursuant to an order of Judge Dowdy on 27 September 2019, Mr Saffari filed a document styled as “Draft Statement of Claim” (DSOC). Then, on 20 January 2020, without leave, Mr Saffari filed a document styled as “Statement of Claim” (ASOC). This document annexed various material including primary documents, such as emails and printed copies of webpages. At some point, the proceedings came to be listed before his Honour Judge Street, the primary judge. On 24 February 2021, the Circuit Court proceedings were fixed for hearing of Mr Braeuniger’s application for summary dismissal (which had been filed on 31 October 2019) and for Mr Saffari’s application for summary judgment against Mr Braeuniger (which had been filed on 18 February 2021). The hearing on 24 February 2021 before the primary judge culminated in two sets of orders being made, with two separate reasons for judgment being delivered, with the result that the proceedings were dismissed against all respondents. The proceedings against Amazon, Mr Bezos and Mr Thibodeaux were dismissed on the basis that the proceedings had not been served within 12 months as required by r 6.17 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), and, accordingly, the proceedings were stale as against Amazon, Mr Bezos and Mr Thibodeaux: PJ at [5]. The primary judge noted that Mr Saffari believed that he had taken steps to effect service but found that the steps taken by Mr Saffari were not in accordance with the relevant rules: PJ at [3]. The primary judge declined to extend the time for the validity of the “application”: PJ at [4].