P1 v D1 [2012] NSWSC 164

P1 v D1 [2012] NSWSC 164

The application was dismissed because the unchallenged evidence showed that a hearing in Grafton would involve substantially increased costs and inadequate facilities, and because transferring the hearing to the local community was inimical to the plaintiffs' asserted need for privacy and anonymity. Having regard to the overriding purpose and the dictates of justice, the proceedings should be heard in Sydney.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Change of Venue / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for change of venue dismissed.
Legal Topics
['change of Venue' 'convenience of Parties and Witnesses' 'overriding Purpose' 'pseudonym and Non Publication Concerns']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Change of Venue / Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 ['Whether the lay evidence, and evidence from three medical practitioners, should be taken in Grafton rather than Sydney.' 'Whether the convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses justified transferring the hearing to Grafton despite increased costs, logistical difficulties and concerns about privacy and anonymity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the unchallenged evidence showed that a hearing in Grafton would involve substantially increased costs and inadequate facilities, and because transferring the hearing to the local community was inimical to the plaintiffs' asserted need for privacy and anonymity. Having regard to the overriding purpose and the dictates of justice, the proceedings should be heard in Sydney.

Court Disposition

Application for change of venue dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Confirm the hearing of all matters to commence in Sydney on 16 July 2012 with an estimate of five weeks.' 'Note that, subject to any other order or direction that the trial judge may make, all matters are to be heard together to the intent that the evidence in any one case will be evidence in all others.' 'Direct...