Monash IVF Pty Limited v Dr Lynne Burmeister (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 903

Monash IVF Pty Limited v Dr Lynne Burmeister (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 903

The defendants did not establish that the Supreme Court of Victoria was the more appropriate forum. Although most witnesses and the parties were connected with Victoria and Dr Burmeister would suffer greater inconvenience if the matter proceeded in Sydney, those considerations did not outweigh the parties' valid New South Wales choice of law and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, the relevance of the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW), the availability of videolink evidence for patient witnesses, and the fact that the New South Wales proceeding was more advanced and fixed for hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Cross Vesting Application to Transfer Proceedings to Another Supreme Court / Defendants' Notice of Motion Filed on 28 June 2017 Seeking Transfer to the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
The defendants' motion filed on 28 June 2017 was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'more Appropriate Forum' 'choice of Law Clause' 'non Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'restrictive Covenant']
['civil Procedure' 'cross Vesting' 'contract Law' 'restraint of Trade'] ['transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'more Appropriate Forum' 'choice of Law Clause' 'non Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'restrictive Covenant']

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

Civil Procedure Cross Vesting Application to Transfer Proceedings to Another Supreme Court / Defendants' Notice of Motion Filed on 28 June 2017 Seeking Transfer to the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceeding should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to s 5(2)(b) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).' 'Whether the Supreme Court of Victoria was the more appropriate forum having regard to objective connecting factors.' "What weight should be given to the parties' New South Wales choice of law and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses compared with the residence and convenience of witnesses in Victoria."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not establish that the Supreme Court of Victoria was the more appropriate forum. Although most witnesses and the parties were connected with Victoria and Dr Burmeister would suffer greater inconvenience if the matter proceeded in Sydney, those considerations did not outweigh the parties' valid New South Wales choice of law and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, the relevance of the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW), the availability of videolink evidence for patient witnesses, and the fact that the New South Wales proceeding was more advanced and fixed for hearing.

Court Disposition

The defendants' motion filed on 28 June 2017 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The defendants' motion filed on 28 June 2017 be dismissed with costs."]