Well-Built Shoes of Australia P/L v. Happy Toes Footwear Ltd (Singapore)

Well-Built Shoes has commenced proceedings in Supreme Court of Victoria against Happy Toes (Singapore) which, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Happy Toes (Delaware) a company with its principal place of business in New York and incorporated in the State of Delaware.

Well-Built Shoes only has operations in Victoria and Happy Toes (Singapore) only has operations in Singapore. Happy Toes (Delaware) conducts business in many places through its subsidiary corporations.

There exists a written contract between Well-Built Shoes and Happy Toes Singapore that states:

The parties to this Agreement consent to the jurisdiction of any state or federal court of competent jurisdiction located in the City of New York, State of New York in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating in any manner to this agreement.

You are to assume that in personam jurisdiction exists in Victoria and that Happy Toes has been properly served with process.

Well-Built Shoes alleges that Happy Toes (Singapore) is acting in breach of its written contract and seeks both damages and injunctive relief.

Happy Toes does not want to litigate in Victoria and has moved to stay proceedings:

6. Happy Toes (Singapore) makes an application in VSC to stay proceedings based on the jurisdiction clause.

A.The Victorian Court must grant the application because it reflects the intention of the parties.

B.Both Australia and Singapore follow the British Common law whereas the courts in New York follow American common law and so the application will be denied.

C. There are jury trials in New York and this violates Australian constitutional rights and therefore the application will be denied.

D.The application may be denied because New York is not listed as being the exclusive jurisdiction but merely permissive.

E.All of the above

QB) If instead of an application for a stay, had Happy Toes made an application for transfer to New York under the cross-vesting legislation, which of these statements are correct:

A.

The Victorian Court would have considered the interests of justice test and all of the factors that encompasses including the location of parties and witnesses.

B.

Whether New York law governed the dispute would be an appropriate issue as well as the forum clause.

C.

Whether there were prior related actions pending in New York would be a relevant consideration for the Victorian Court.

D.

All of the above.

E.

None of the above.