breach of contract committed in Queensland, regardless of where the contract was made and whether or not the breach was preceded of accompanied by a breach...rendering impossible the performance of a part of the contract that ought to be performed in Queensland” (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (124)(1)(i)).
In this case, the rules probably will not give the court jurisdiction. The contract was not made in Queensland – the contract was executed in England. It also states that service is permitted if the contract is governed by the law of Queensland. The contract did not state which law governed, so this clause does not have effect.
So, now the other two clauses must be examined – that service would be permitted if the breach of contract was committed in Queensland. Was the breach of contract committed in Queensland? Probably not. The breach occurred in England, as the consignment was packed in England, and the packing of the consignment was the cause of the damage. The other clause is that service is permitted when the contract is made by one or more parties carrying on business or residing in Queensland. The contract was executed by Global Freighting in England, and they do not reside in Queensland. However, they are carrying on business in Queensland, so this might be a basis for service. However, the term “carrying on business” is kind of vague – is it enough that Global Freighting made a contract with a Queensland company – would this be considered to be “carrying on business?”
If this is not a basis for jurisdiction, then we need to look at other connecting factors. They are residence, domicile or presence of defendant in the courts jurisdiction (Akbarali v. Brent LBC). In this case, none of these connecting factors are present – defendant does not reside in Queensland, is not domiciled and has never been to Queensland. Therefore, connecting factors would not give Queensland jurisdiction either.
Plus, the doctrine of