Legal Research
Cases
Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman

Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman

Case [2024] NSWSC 971 8 August 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman and others [2024] NSWSC 971
Hearing dates: 30 July 2024
Date of orders: 8 August 2024
Decision date: 08 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Black J
Decision:
Stay of proceedings sought by Second and Third Defendants granted. Parties to be heard as to orders to give effect to judgment.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – Concurrent civil and criminal proceedings – Whether civil proceedings should be stayed – Where prejudice to the defendants.

Legislation Cited:
- Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 67
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193B(3)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 128
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 29.19

Cases Cited:
- Application of Computer Sciences Corporation under the Evidence on Commission Act 1995 (NSW) [2019] NSWSC 777
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2019) 138 ACSR 42; [2019] FCA 964
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Taylor [2023] FCAFC 189
- Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao (2015) 255 CLR 46; [2015] HCA 5
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2016] 242 FCR 153; [2016] FCAFC 97
- Crespin v Francis [2016] VSC 277
- Figurehead Constructions v Machado [2023] VSC 448
- McMahon v Gould (1982) 7 ACLR 202
- Ransley v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCA 778
- Strickland v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (2018) 361 ALR 23; (2018) 266 CLR 325; [2018] HCA 53
- Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman [2024] NSWSC 440
- Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 441
- X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 29

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Telstra Ltd (Plaintiff)
Qartullah Sulaiman (First Defendant)
Azatullah Sulaiman (Second Defendant/Applicant)
Khalida Sulaiman (Third Defendant/Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Tam (Plaintiff)
R Rahal (Solicitor) (First Defendant)
T Bagley (Second and Third Defendants/Applicants)
Solicitors:
King & Wood Mallesons (Plaintiff)
Cambridge Law (First Defendant)
Republic Lawyers (First and Second Defendants/Applicants)

File Number(s): 2023/448786 (003)

Judgment

Nature of the applications and background

This judgment deals with stay applications brought by two of the Defendants to these proceedings, the Second Defendant, Mr Azatullah Sulaiman (“AS”) and the Third Defendant, Mrs Khalida Sulaiman (“KS”).
By way of background, by Summons filed on 11 December 2023, the Plaintiff, Telstra Corporation Limited (“Telstra”), sought certain orders in respect of the conduct of these proceedings, including freezing orders against the First Defendant, Mr Qartullah Sulaiman (“QS”), AS and KS. On 11 December 2023, McGrath J, as duty judge, made freezing orders against each of the Defendants. On 15 December 2023, Ball J varied that order reducing the amount which the Defendants could spend each week in respect of ordinary living expenses.
By Notice of Motion filed on 1 February 2024, QS sought an order that the proceedings be stayed under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act

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 Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman

Details

AGLC: Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman [2024] NSWSC 971
Case: [2024] NSWSC 971
Decision Date: 08 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Telstra Limited commenced civil proceedings against Mr Sulaiman for copyright infringement in relation to the unauthorised distribution of Telstra's software. Concurrently, Mr Sulaiman faced criminal proceedings in relation to the same alleged copyright infringement. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the civil proceedings should be stayed due to the concurrent criminal proceedings to avoid potential prejudice to the defendants.

The court identified that the primary legal issue was whether the civil proceedings should be stayed in light of the concurrent criminal proceedings. The court needed to consider whether staying the civil proceedings would be in the interests of justice, particularly in light of the potential for prejudice to the defendants if both sets of proceedings were to proceed simultaneously.

The court considered the potential for prejudice to the defendants in the civil proceedings, noting the inherent risk of double jeopardy and the potential for the defendants to be unfairly burdened by the need to defend two separate sets of proceedings on the same facts. The court also examined the principle of comity between courts, recognising the importance of avoiding unnecessary duplication of judicial resources. Ultimately, the court determined that the civil proceedings should be stayed to prevent prejudice to the defendants and to respect the principle of comity between courts.

The court ordered that the civil proceedings be stayed until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, ensuring that the defendants would not be put to undue hardship or risk of prejudice by having to defend two separate sets of proceedings on the same facts.

Orders