Resort Living Group Pty Limited v Strategic Advisers Group LLC [2021] NSWSC 1418

Resort Living Group Pty Limited v Strategic Advisers Group LLC [2021] NSWSC 1418

The Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter because neither party requested referral to arbitration as per Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (Cth) s 8, and the Deed of Agreement's arbitration clause is interpreted as optional rather than mandatory. Service was properly effected via registered Airmail in accordance...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Resort Living Group Pty Limited; First Defendant: Strategic Advisers Group LLC; Second Defendant: Saviano Sebastian; Third Defendant: Kumar Solutions Management
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Procedural Rulings / Adjourned to Further Hearing; Interlocutory Motions Considered
Outcome
Proceedings adjourned; defendants given further opportunity to participate; plaintiff to provide updated affidavit for damages.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Defence, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Clause, Summary Judgment, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Strike Out Defence Jurisdiction Arbitration Clause Summary Judgment Service of Process

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resort Living Group Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Strategic Advisers Group LLC

First Defendant

Saviano Sebastian

Second Defendant

Kumar Solutions Management

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Rulings / Adjourned to Further Hearing; Interlocutory Motions Considered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the NSW Supreme Court has jurisdiction given the arbitration/litigation clause in the Deed of Agreement
  2. 2 Whether service of originating process on defendants located outside Australia was properly executed under applicable rules
  3. 3 Whether defence filed by first and second defendants should be struck out for want of due despatch

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter because neither party requested referral to arbitration as per Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (Cth) s 8, and the Deed of Agreement's arbitration clause is interpreted as optional rather than mandatory. Service was properly effected via registered Airmail in accordance with UCPR. Summary judgment is not granted against first and second defendants as no notice of termination was served under the Deed; defendants are given one last opportunity to participate before the defence is struck out for want of due despatch.

Court Disposition

Proceedings adjourned; defendants given further opportunity to participate; plaintiff to provide updated affidavit for damages.

Orders

  • Proceedings are adjourned to 16 November 2021 at 10:00am before the Court.
  • Plaintiff to send a copy of this judgment by email to first, second and third defendants and draw their attention to the orders.