Epic Games, Inc v Google LLC (Stay Application)

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court
• Judgment Date: 04 February 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] FCA 66
• Date: 04 February 2022

Federal Court of Australia

Epic Games, Inc v Google LLC (Stay Application) [2022] FCA 66

File number:	NSD 190 of 2021
Judgment of:	PERRAM J
Date of judgment:	4 February 2022
Catchwords:	PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – application for stay of proceedings – where proceedings allege contraventions of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (‘CCA’) Pt IV and Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’) s 21 – where exclusive jurisdiction clause requires litigation to occur in California – where clause subject to challenge under the CCA and ACL – where mandatory law of the forum – whether stay should be granted
Legislation:	Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 4L, Pt IV ss 45, 46, 47(2), 80, 83, 87(1),(1A), (2)(b), 87CA, Sch 2 ss 21, 232, 237 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 59, 75, 80, 135 Sherman Act 15 USC §1 Cartwright Act Cal Bus & Prof Code §16700 et seq California Civil Code §§1559, 3399 Unfair Competition Law Cal Bus & Prof Code §17200 et seq
Cases cited:	Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418 Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (No 1) (1996) 64 FCR 1 Apple Inc v Epic Games, Inc [2021] HCASL 234 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 77; 277 FCR 49 Australian Health & Nutrition Association v Hive Marketing Group [2019] NSWCA 61; 99 NSWLR 419 Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 308; 380 ALR 300 Black Diamond S.S Corporation v Robert Stewart & Sons (Norwalk Victory) 336 US 386 (1949) Casaceli v Natuzzi S.p.A [2012] FCA 691; 292 ALR 143 Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 101; 187 FCR 261 CIGNA Corporation v Amara 563 US 421 (2011) Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White [1999] VSC 262; 2 VR 681 Cung Le v Zuffa, LLC 108 FSupp3d 768 (ND Cal 2015) Dialogue Consulting Pty Ltd v Instagram, Inc [2020] FCA 1846 Epic Games, Inc v Apple Inc (Stay Application) [2021] FCA 338; 151 ACSR 444 Epic Games, Inc v Apple Inc [2021] FCAFC 122; 392 ALR 66 Epic Games, Inc v Apple Inc (ND Cal, 10 September 2021) 2021 WL 4128925 Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd (in liq) [2010] NSWCA 196; 79 ACSR 383 Hall v The Superior Court of Orange County 150 CalApp3d 411 (Cal 1983) Hearne v Marine Insurance Co 87 US 488 (1874) In re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd [1992] Ch 72 In re Orange SA 818 F3d 956 (9th Cir 2016) Intel Corporation v Tela Innovations, Inc (ND Cal, 18 September 2018) 2019 WL 5697922 John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36; 203 CLR 503 Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (Stay Application) [2021] FCA 1082 Mabb v Merriam 129 Cal 663, 62 P 212 (Cal 1900) Matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation 435 FSupp 944 (ND Ohio 1976) McKain v R W Miller & Co (SA) Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 1 Nedlloyd Lines B.V v The Superior Court of San Mateo County 3 Cal4th 459 (Cal 1992) Nicola v Ideal Image Development Corp Inc [2009] FCA 1177; 215 FCR 76 Nielson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2005] HCA 54; 223 CLR 331 Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31; 225 CLR 516 Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v The Boots Company (Australia) Pty Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 287 Tamaya Resources Limited (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) [2016] FCAFC 2; 332 ALR 199 Telesto Investments Limited v UBS AG [2013] NSWSC 503; 94 ACSR 29 Trade Practices Commission v Queensland Aggregates Pty Ltd (No 3) (1982) 44 ALR 391 Verdugo v Alliantgroup, L.P 237 CalApp4th 141 (Cal 2015) Western Federal Savings & Loan Association v Heflin Corporation 797 FSupp 790 (ND Cal 1992) Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2021] HCA 7; 388 ALR 272 Wimsatt v Beverley Hills Weight etc International, Inc 32 CalApp4th 1511 (Cal 1995) Yan Guo v Kyani, Inc 311 FSupp3d 1130 (CD Cal 2018) Yei A. Sun v Advanced China Healthcare, Inc 901 F3d 1081 (9th Cir 2018)
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	Economic Regulator, Competition and Access
Number of paragraphs:	220
Date of hearing:	13 October 2021
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr N Young QC with Mr M P Costello, Mr A d’Arville and Dr C Brown
Solicitor for the Applicants	Clifford Chance
Counsel for the Respondents	Mr N Hutley SC with Mr J Hutton, Mr R Yezerski and Ms C Trahanas
Solicitor for the Respondents	Corrs Chambers Westgarth

ORDERS

		NSD 190 of 2021
BETWEEN:	EPIC GAMES, INC First Applicant ; EPIC GAMES INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L Second Applicant
AND:	GOOGLE LLC First Respondent ; GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE.LTD. Second Respondent ; GOOGLE PAYMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Third Respondent

order made by:	PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 February 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Respondents’ interlocutory application filed 9 August 2021 be dismissed.

2. The Respondents pay the Applicants’ costs of the interlocutory application.

3. The Applicants have leave to file and serve a Second Amended Originating Application and Second Amended Concise Statement in the form contained in annexures DP-85 and DP-86 to the affidavit of Dave Poddar affirmed 21 October 2021.

4. The Respondents pay the Applicants’ costs of the amendment application.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PERRAM J:

Introduction

1. The question presented by this interlocutory application is whether this proceeding should be stayed so that it may be pursued before the state or federal courts sitting in Santa Clara County in California. The Respondents say that the stay should be granted because of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or, alternatively, on forum non conveniens grounds. For the reasons which follow, the stay application should be refused with costs.

The Nature of the Respondents’ Application

2. The Applicants are Epic Games, Inc (‘Epic Games’) and Epic Games International S.à.r.l (‘Epic International’) (collectively, ‘Epic’). The Respondents are Google LLC, Google Asia Pacific Pte...