Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 9)

In this case, Thunder Studios Inc (California) filed a claim against Kazal, and the matter came before the Federal Court of Australia. The Kazal parties sought orders that the proceedings be transferred to another judge's docket or stayed until other related proceedings were decided. The respondents had no defence to the applicants' claims, and the other proceedings involved mostly unrelated issues and different parties. The Kazal parties commenced one of the other proceedings without informing their solicitor of this proceeding. The court was required to determine whether there would be a risk of inconsistent findings or judgments if all proceedings were managed separately or the current proceeding was not stayed, and whether transfer or stay would further the overarching purpose of s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act (1976).

The court found that the situation was entirely of the Kazal parties' own making. They had not informed their solicitor about the existence of other related proceedings when instructing him to commence the KTC proceeding. The court concluded that staying or transferring the Thunder proceeding to be dealt with together with the other two proceedings would not achieve the overarching purpose of Part VB of the Federal Court Act. The interlocutory application was dismissed with costs, which should be payable forthwith due to the apparent impecuniosity of the Kazal parties.

The court found that the Kazal parties had not provided a satisfactory explanation for their conduct, which weighed heavily against them. The court found no substantive risk of conflicting judgments in the proceedings, as the findings sought in the Thunder proceeding related to the existence of defamatory meanings or representations conveyed by the publications complained of and awards of damages as relief for those claims. The potential for conflicting judgments was not a significant factor in the court's decision.

The final orders were that the respondents' interlocutory application filed on 24 April 2020 be dismissed, and the respondents pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application, which should be payable forthwith. Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.