Christian v Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A. (No 3) [2014] FCA 1395

Christian v Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A. (No 3) [2014] FCA 1395

The application was dismissed because it was a second application for the same change of venue, raised no new matter that was not or could not have been advanced earlier, and was therefore an abuse of process; in any event, the grounds advanced were wholly without merit and did not justify transfer to the Victorian District Registry.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Change of Venue in an Appeal From a Judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Heard on the Papers; Appeal Fixed for Hearing by a Full Court in Sydney on 2 March 2015
Outcome
The appellant's interlocutory application filed on 3 November 2014 was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['change of Venue' 'appeal Procedure' 'abuse of Process' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['change of Venue' 'appeal Procedure' 'abuse of Process' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Change of Venue in an Appeal From a Judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Heard on the Papers; Appeal Fixed for Hearing by a Full Court in Sydney on 2 March 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceeding should be transferred to the Victorian District Registry of the Court.' "Whether the appellant's second application for change of venue was a reagitation of an earlier unsuccessful application and an abuse of the Court's process." "Whether allegations about the commencement and conduct of the Federal Circuit Court proceeding, alleged false evidence, choice of counsel, preparation of the appeal book, and the appellant's financial difficulty justified a change of venue."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it was a second application for the same change of venue, raised no new matter that was not or could not have been advanced earlier, and was therefore an abuse of process; in any event, the grounds advanced were wholly without merit and did not justify transfer to the Victorian District Registry.

Court Disposition

The appellant's interlocutory application filed on 3 November 2014 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's interlocutory application filed on 3 November 2014 (the interlocutory application) be dismissed." "The appellant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application."]