Stargames Corp Pty Limited v WMS Gaming Inc [2007] NSWSC 940

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Stargames Corp Pty Limited v WMS Gaming Inc [2007] NSWSC 940 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S) : 23 August 2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 23 August 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Bergin J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 23 August 2007

DECISION : Injunction granted to 5pm on 29 August 2007.

CATCHWORDS : [INJUNCTIONS] Proceedings commenced in US Court seeking to restrain the plaintiffs from continuing Australian proceedings.

CASES CITED : CSR Limited v CIGNA Insurance (Australia) Limited (1997) 189 CLR 345

Stargames Corporation Pty Limited (first plaintiff) PARTIES : Shuffle Master Australiasia Holdings (second plaintiff) Shuffle Master Inc (third plaintiff) WMS Gaming Inc (defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50127/07

COUNSEL : AS Bell SC/G Wright (plaintiffs)

SOLICITORS : Addisons (plaintiffs)

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION COMMERCIAL LIST

BERGIN J

23 AUGUST 2007

50127/07 STARGAMES CORP PTY LIMITED & ORS v WMS GAMING INC JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for urgent relief brought by the plaintiffs in proceedings 50127 of 2007, Stargames Corporation Pty Limited, Shuffle Master Australasia Holdings Pty Limited, and Shuffle Master Inc against WMS Gaming Inc (WMS) as the defendant (the Australian proceedings). 2 The plaintiffs were and are parties to an agreement with WMS, which is the subject of a confidentiality regime and accordingly I shall not descend into it in detail. However, for the purposes of understanding the orders I intend to make it is sufficient to say that disputation arose in respect of the arrangements under the agreement. Such disputation is evidenced in correspondence in Exhibit C, in which the plaintiffs requested the defendant to rectify what they claimed to be a short supply of the relevant items the subject of their agreement in the fiscal year ending 30 June 2006. That correspondence was in about March/April 2007. 3 Since then a separate dispute arose in which WMS sought payment from the plaintiffs of an amount of money pursuant to the agreement. WMS served a demand on the plaintiffs identifying a period of 30 days from, it appears, 30 July 2007 to pay that amount of money or to "cure such default". 4 Notwithstanding the time period given to the plaintiffs to pay the demanded amount WMS commenced proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the US Court), on 6 August 2007 (the US proceedings). That claim sought the amount by way of damages, plus interest, plus costs, and related expenses. It also sought what was referred to as any additional "consequential damages". In addition it contained a prayer for a declaration that the plaintiffs had breached certain duties to pay WMS a particular amount. 5 On 13 August 2007 the parties filed with the court a Joint Motion for Entry of Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Service. The Joint Stipulation recited the fact that WMS had filed a complaint against the defendants on 6 August 2007, that it had requested these plaintiffs to agree to waive service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d), and it was noted that the plaintiffs resided outside the United States. 6 The recitals also claimed that the parties had been discussing an amended agreement which "if agreed to by the parties, would likely resolve the litigation". The parties then stipulated and agreed that: 1. All Defendants hereby agree to waive service of process and enter their appearances instanter .