Franklin v GHF Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 793

Franklin v GHF Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 793

The applicant for transfer did not establish sound reason to change the venue to Melbourne. The balance of convenience does not clearly favour Melbourne, significant connection to Hobart remains due to the applicants' residence and the location of the business at issue, and alleged expenses and inconvenience to respondents are not compelling enough to override these considerations.

Parties
First Applicant: Guy Robert Franklin; Second Applicant: Terence William Moore; Third Applicant: GFC Hobart Pty Ltd ACN 132 428 981; First Respondent / Cross Claimant (in the First Cross Claim) / First Cross Respondent (in the Second Cross Claim): GHF Pty Ltd ACN 107 070 280; Second Respondent / First Cross Respondent in the First Cross Claim / Cross Claimant in the Second Cross Claim: Damien Bain; Third Respondent / Second Cross Respondent in the First and Second Cross Claim: Marianna Giurguis; Fourth Respondent / Third Cross Respondent in the First and Second Cross Claim: Keith Perumal; Fifth Respondent / Fourth Cross Respondent in the First and Second Cross Claim: Jaspri Private Pty Ltd ACN 099 027 059; Sixth Respondent / Fifth Cross Respondent the First and Second Cross Claim: Simone Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Transfer Venue
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Transfer of Proceedings, Venue Determination, Balance of Convenience
Practice and Procedure Transfer of Proceedings Venue Determination Balance of Convenience

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guy Robert Franklin

First Applicant

Terence William Moore

Second Applicant

GFC Hobart Pty Ltd ACN 132 428 981

Third Applicant

GHF Pty Ltd ACN 107 070 280

First Respondent / Cross Claimant (in the First Cross Claim) / First Cross Respondent (in the Second Cross Claim)

Damien Bain

Second Respondent / First Cross Respondent in the First Cross Claim / Cross Claimant in the Second Cross Claim

Marianna Giurguis

Third Respondent / Second Cross Respondent in the First and Second Cross Claim

Keith Perumal

Fourth Respondent / Third Cross Respondent in the First and Second Cross Claim

Jaspri Private Pty Ltd ACN 099 027 059

Fifth Respondent / Fourth Cross Respondent in the First and Second Cross Claim

Simone Smith

Sixth Respondent / Fifth Cross Respondent the First and Second Cross Claim

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Transfer Venue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceeding should be transferred from Hobart to Melbourne under s 48 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant for transfer did not establish sound reason to change the venue to Melbourne. The balance of convenience does not clearly favour Melbourne, significant connection to Hobart remains due to the applicants' residence and the location of the business at issue, and alleged expenses and inconvenience to respondents are not compelling enough to override these considerations.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The first respondent's interlocutory application filed 17 July 2014 be dismissed.
  • The first respondent pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application.