Glenn v Kemp [2022] NSWSC 551

Glenn v Kemp [2022] NSWSC 551

The Court was not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings to South Australia. There was no clear forum: South Australia had a connection through Ms Kemp's residence, Queensland through Ms Glenn's residence and Dante's semen, and Queensland or New South Wales through Dante's location since late 2019. The lex loci delicti was not clear, the proceedings had been in New South Wales for some time, pleadings and interlocutory steps had occurred there, and remote appearance procedures reduced the significance of interstate travel. Although the motion failed, the transfer question was finely balanced and appropriately brought to the Court's attention, so the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Transfer Proceedings to the Supreme Court of South Australia Under Cross Vesting Legislation / Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; costs of the defendant's notice of motion for transfer ordered to be costs in the cause; matter listed for directions.
Legal Topics
['transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'interests of Justice' 'forum Appropriateness' 'costs in the Cause' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'cross Vesting' 'costs'] ['transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'interests of Justice' 'forum Appropriateness' 'costs in the Cause' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion to Transfer Proceedings to the Supreme Court of South Australia Under Cross Vesting Legislation / Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of South Australia under s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).' 'Whether the costs of the unsuccessful transfer motion should follow the event, be awarded on an indemnity basis, be assessed as a gross sum, or be costs in the cause.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings to South Australia. There was no clear forum: South Australia had a connection through Ms Kemp's residence, Queensland through Ms Glenn's residence and Dante's semen, and Queensland or New South Wales through Dante's location since late 2019. The lex loci delicti was not clear, the proceedings had been in New South Wales for some time, pleadings and interlocutory steps had occurred there, and remote appearance procedures reduced the significance of interstate travel. Although the motion failed, the transfer question was finely balanced and appropriately brought to the Court's attention, so the...

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; costs of the defendant's notice of motion for transfer ordered to be costs in the cause; matter listed for directions.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the notice of motion filed 25 March 2022.' "The costs of the defendant's notice of motion for transfer be costs in the cause." 'List the matter for directions before the Registrar at 9am on 12 May 2022.']