Vision Systems Ltd v Cincom Systems of Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 120

Vision Systems Ltd v Cincom Systems of Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 120

Vision's claim does not arise out of the software licence agreement, nor out of the relationship or activities related to it; most claims are based on representations or terms made before the agreement. Therefore, clause 9.1's exclusive jurisdiction provision does not apply, and the stay application is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Vision Systems Ltd; Respondent: Cincom Systems of Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Motion to Stay Proceedings / Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Hearing in District Court
Outcome
Motion to stay proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Stay of Proceedings
Contract Law Trade Practices Breach of Contract Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Stay of Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vision Systems Ltd

Applicant

Cincom Systems of Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Motion to Stay Proceedings / Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Hearing in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 'arising out of' agreement includes claims based on representations prior to agreement
  2. 2 Whether proceedings in Federal Court should be stayed due to exclusive jurisdiction clause and concurrent District Court proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Vision's claim does not arise out of the software licence agreement, nor out of the relationship or activities related to it; most claims are based on representations or terms made before the agreement. Therefore, clause 9.1's exclusive jurisdiction provision does not apply, and the stay application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion to stay proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • The motion notice of 18 December 1998 be dismissed.
  • The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the motion.