Henderson bhnf Sullivan v State of Queensland [2017] NSWSC 1313

Henderson bhnf Sullivan v State of Queensland [2017] NSWSC 1313

Although there were factors favouring transfer to Queensland, including that the alleged negligence occurred in Queensland, Queensland law applied, and potential witnesses were in Queensland and northern New South Wales, the Court was not satisfied that the interests of justice required transfer. The plaintiff's solicitor was in Parramatta, plaintiff's experts were located in Sydney, judicial case management would be available in New South Wales, no conclusion could be drawn that a hearing date would be more readily forthcoming in either court, and the Supreme Court of New South Wales could potentially sit in Lismore or another northern New South Wales court to reduce inconvenience and cost.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Transfer of Proceedings Under Cross Vesting Legislation / Notice of Motion Filed on 19 June 2017
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings' 'interests of Justice' 'appropriate Forum' 'applicable Substantive Law' 'convenience of Witnesses']
['civil Procedure' 'cross Vesting' 'tort' 'medical Negligence'] ['transfer of Proceedings' 'interests of Justice' 'appropriate Forum' 'applicable Substantive Law' 'convenience of Witnesses']

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 Transfer of Proceedings Under Cross Vesting Legislation / Notice of Motion Filed on 19 June 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland pursuant to s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).' 'Whether the interests of justice would be best served by transfer, having regard to the location of the alleged wrong, applicable Queensland law, witnesses, parties, solicitors, experts, and possible hearing arrangements in New South Wales.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there were factors favouring transfer to Queensland, including that the alleged negligence occurred in Queensland, Queensland law applied, and potential witnesses were in Queensland and northern New South Wales, the Court was not satisfied that the interests of justice required transfer. The plaintiff's solicitor was in Parramatta, plaintiff's experts were located in Sydney, judicial case management would be available in New South Wales, no conclusion could be drawn that a hearing date would be more readily forthcoming in either court, and the Supreme Court of New South Wales could potentially sit in Lismore or another northern New South Wales court to reduce inconvenience and cost.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the notice of motion filed on 19 June 2017.' 'Order the costs of the motion to be costs in the cause.']