Millwood v Graff [2012] NSWSC 753

Millwood v Graff [2012] NSWSC 753

The Court was not satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff's likely damages, if successful, would exceed the District Court jurisdictional limit. The evidence about the plaintiff's past rugby league earnings, the consequences of the injury, subsequent injuries, causation, playing history, and future economic loss was too limited and inadequately particularised. As no other sufficient reason for transfer was advanced, the statutory condition in s 140(3) was not met and the summons was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 for Transfer of District Court Personal Injury Proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales / Summons Filed 10 May 2012; Ex Tempore Judgment on Transfer Application
Outcome
Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings From District Court to Supreme Court' 'jurisdictional Limit of the District Court' 'personal Injury Damages' 'future Economic Loss' 'earning Capacity']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'torts'] ['transfer of Proceedings From District Court to Supreme Court' 'jurisdictional Limit of the District Court' 'personal Injury Damages' 'future Economic Loss' 'earning Capacity']

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 Pursuant to S 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 for Transfer of District Court Personal Injury Proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales / Summons Filed 10 May 2012; Ex Tempore Judgment on Transfer Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court should order District Court proceedings to be transferred under s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.' 'Whether the Court was satisfied that the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff, if successful, was likely to exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court.' 'Whether there was other sufficient reason for the proceedings to be heard in the Supreme Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff's likely damages, if successful, would exceed the District Court jurisdictional limit. The evidence about the plaintiff's past rugby league earnings, the consequences of the injury, subsequent injuries, causation, playing history, and future economic loss was too limited and inadequately particularised. As no other sufficient reason for transfer was advanced, the statutory condition in s 140(3) was not met and the summons was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs." 'I order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings in this Court.']