Australia Health & Nutrition Association Limited v Hive Marketing Group Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1236

Australia Health & Nutrition Association Limited v Hive Marketing Group Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1236

The application of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the risk transfer agreement is enforced, as no sufficient cause or public policy reasons were made out to allow proceedings in NSW against Emirat Limited to continue. The spectre of multiplicity and inconsistency is within the parties' control and is not a sufficient reason to deprive Emirat of its contractual right.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Australia Health & Nutrition Association Limited; Second Plaintiff: Rebel Sport Limited; First Defendant: Hive Marketing Group Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Emirat Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Dismissal of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Proceedings as between first plaintiff and second defendant dismissed; costs awarded to second defendant against plaintiffs; plaintiffs' application for leave to proceed dismissed.
Legal Topics
Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Dismissal of Proceedings, Commercial Contracts
Civil Procedure Contract Law Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Dismissal of Proceedings Commercial Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australia Health & Nutrition Association Limited

First Plaintiff

Rebel Sport Limited

Second Plaintiff

Hive Marketing Group Pty Limited

First Defendant

Emirat Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Dismissal of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English exclusive jurisdiction clause in the risk transfer agreement should be enforced to dismiss proceedings in NSW Supreme Court against Emirat Limited
  2. 2 Whether cost and inconvenience to non-parties or public policy can justify overriding exclusive jurisdiction clause
  3. 3 Whether multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings justify not enforcing exclusive jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The application of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the risk transfer agreement is enforced, as no sufficient cause or public policy reasons were made out to allow proceedings in NSW against Emirat Limited to continue. The spectre of multiplicity and inconsistency is within the parties' control and is not a sufficient reason to deprive Emirat of its contractual right.

Court Disposition

Proceedings as between first plaintiff and second defendant dismissed; costs awarded to second defendant against plaintiffs; plaintiffs' application for leave to proceed dismissed.

Orders

  • Order that as between the first plaintiff and the second defendant, the proceedings be dismissed.
  • Order the plaintiffs to pay the second defendant's costs of the second defendant's notice of motion filed on 21 June 2018.