Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Woff [2015] FCA 290

Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Woff [2015] FCA 290

Although the first and second respondents would generally incur additional disbursements if the trial were held in Adelaide rather than Melbourne, the evidence did not quantify those costs with sufficient precision, the matters advanced went only to balance of convenience, and the application was made well past an appropriate time shortly before trial. Those matters could not justify changing the place of trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Place of Trial / Interlocutory Application by the First and Second Respondents, Heard on the Papers Before Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['place of Trial' 'transfer or Conduct of Proceedings at Another Place' 'balance of Convenience' 'interlocutory Application']
['practice and Procedure'] ['place of Trial' 'transfer or Conduct of Proceedings at Another Place' 'balance of Convenience' 'interlocutory Application']

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

Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Place of Trial / Interlocutory Application by the First and Second Respondents, Heard on the Papers Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether part of the proceeding, namely the taking of evidence at trial, or the trial as a whole, should be conducted in Melbourne rather than Adelaide.' 'Whether the additional disbursements said to be incurred by the first and second respondents if the trial were held in Adelaide justified changing the place of trial.' 'Whether the application was made at an appropriate time before the listed trial date.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the first and second respondents would generally incur additional disbursements if the trial were held in Adelaide rather than Melbourne, the evidence did not quantify those costs with sufficient precision, the matters advanced went only to balance of convenience, and the application was made well past an appropriate time shortly before trial. Those matters could not justify changing the place of trial.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application of the first and second respondents dated 12 February 2015 be dismissed.']