Showtime Touring Group Pty Ltd v Mosley Touring Inc [2011] NSWSC 1401

Showtime Touring Group Pty Ltd v Mosley Touring Inc [2011] NSWSC 1401

The second defendant was properly served in Florida in accordance with its law, but the pleadings disclosed no conduct by the second defendant in Australia, a requirement for s 75B Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) accessorial liability claims. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction over the s 75B claim or the contract claim against him; both could not proceed. The court held that the second defendant was entitled to have proceedings against him set aside, and interlocutory costs (in the sum of $70,000) should be paid forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Judgment and Resolution of Motions
Outcome
Proceedings against the second defendant set aside; interlocutory costs order made; proceedings against the first defendant to continue (on TPA claim only); orders on publication and costs.
Legal Topics
['jurisdiction' 'accessorial Liability' 'service of Process' 'expert Evidence' 'costs Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'trade Practices'] ['jurisdiction' 'accessorial Liability' 'service of Process' 'expert Evidence' 'costs Orders']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Judgment and Resolution of Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether service on the second defendant in Florida was valid under Florida law' 'Whether the court has jurisdiction over the second defendant regarding the accessorial liability claim under s 75B Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)' 'Whether the proceedings against the second defendant should be set aside or stayed' "Whether the plaintiff should pay defendants' gross sum costs forthwith"]

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant was properly served in Florida in accordance with its law, but the pleadings disclosed no conduct by the second defendant in Australia, a requirement for s 75B Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) accessorial liability claims. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction over the s 75B claim or the contract claim against him; both could not proceed. The court held that the second defendant was entitled to have proceedings against him set aside, and interlocutory costs (in the sum of $70,000) should be paid forthwith.

Court Disposition

Proceedings against the second defendant set aside; interlocutory costs order made; proceedings against the first defendant to continue (on TPA claim only); orders on publication and costs.

Orders

  • ['Service on the second defendant is deemed valid but proceedings against him are set aside for lack of jurisdiction.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendants' interlocutory costs assessed at $70,000 forthwith." 'No order for a stay pending payment of the costs.' 'Names of defendants corrected in the record.' "Order...