Legal Project Management Plan & Checklist
Purpose of this Guide: This fork activates when a multinational defendant applies for a stay of Australian class action proceedings based on a class action waiver clause or an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a standard-form consumer contract. Under Karpik v Carnival Plc [2022] HCA 39, these clauses are void under ACL s 23 (unfair contract terms) where the respondent carries on business in Australia. This guide covers: identifying the stay application, proving the defendant carries on business in Australia (ACL s 5(1) extraterritorial trigger), establishing that the clause meets the three-part ACL s 23 unfair terms test, resisting the stay application at the interlocutory hearing, and securing the continuation of the Australian class action.
Jurisdiction: Federal Court of Australia or Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The Process at a Glance: Defendant files stay application based on class action waiver or exclusive jurisdiction clause. ACL s 5(1) carrying-on-business evidence gathered. Three-part ACL s 23 unfair terms test established. Stay application opposed. Court holds clause void and stay refused. Australian class action proceeds.
* Disclaimer: We're nobody's lawyer, because we aren't lawyers. You are, so you know better than to take legal advice from an app. We also aren't accountants or dog trainers - just digital spirit guides taking zero liability for any of this. This site exists to gather the collective knowledge of practitioners like you. Verify everything and submit your feedback on the Cross-Vesting, Carriage Disputes and Concurrent Class Actions (Lead Plaintiff) - Extraterritorial Contractual Stay Application - Class Action Waivers and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Under ACL s 23 matter plan to improve the playbook. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, it's a request for input.
This legal matter plan provides a structured workflow for LITIGATION cases, outlining the standard DISPUTE_LITIGATION process. Utilize these tracking templates to manage your legal cases efficiently.
The factual and legal foundation to oppose the stay application and pursue consolidation in the optimal forum is fully assembled.
The court is presented with the Karpik HCA 39 authority and the consolidation application. Stay application is refused and the Australian class action proceeds toward a single consolidated forum.
All competing proceedings are consolidated or stayed in favour of a single proceeding. Post-consolidation case management orders are in place and the matter is back on the parent plan timetable.
Post-consolidation compliance is fully established and the matter is proceeding under the unified case management timetable.
Got a question about this plan?
Ask in the practitioner Discord - edge cases, rule changes, and jurisdiction-specific nuances, all in one place.