Joshan v Pizza Pan Group Pty Ltd

(2021) 106 NSWLR 104; [2021] NSWCA 219

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Private International Law
2. › Jurisdiction
3. › Non-exercise of jurisdiction
4. › Stay of proceedings
5. › Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), s 20
6. › Standard of proof
7. › Whether applicant bears onus of proof on balance of probabilities
8. › Whether 'clear and compelling basis' standard correct
1. Private International Law
2. › Jurisdiction
3. › Non-exercise of jurisdiction
4. › Stay of proceedings
5. › Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), s 20
6. › Jurisdiction clauses
7. › Non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses
8. › Whether non-exclusive jurisdiction clause bears great weight on stay application
9. › Whether s 20(4)(d) refers only to exclusive jurisdiction agreements
1. Consumer Law
2. › Industry codes
3. › Franchising Code of Conduct
4. › Franchise agreement
5. › Whether deed of guarantee is a 'franchise agreement' as defined in cl 5 of the Code
6. › Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Regulation 2014 (Cth), sch 1, cl 5
1. Consumer Law
2. › Industry codes
3. › Franchising Code of Conduct
4. › Clause 21(2)(a)
5. › Whether prohibition on jurisdiction clauses applies to non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses
6. › Whether clause 'requires' party to bring proceedings in particular forum
7. › Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Regulation 2014 (Cth), sch 1, cl 21

Quick Take

The 'clear and compelling basis' standard from Rick Cobby is no longer good law for stays under s 20 of SEPA; the ordinary balance of probabilities applies. Non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses carry no or minimal weight on such applications and do not fall within s 20(4)(d).