Adelaide Concrete Cutting & Drilling Pty Ltd v Marino [2021] NSWSC 1034

Adelaide Concrete Cutting & Drilling Pty Ltd v Marino [2021] NSWSC 1034

The first defendant did not establish that the Supreme Court of Queensland was the more appropriate forum in the interests of justice. The non-exclusive Queensland jurisdiction clause carried little weight because the contractual issues did not raise Queensland-specific law and the clause did not mandate Queensland proceedings. The claims against Mr Polo invoked substantive New South Wales issues concerning the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales over a New South Wales solicitor and legal practice. Those factors, together with the delay in seeking transfer, likely additional costs and delay to the plaintiffs, and the absence of a preponderance of connecting...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Cross Vesting Transfer Application / Notice of Motion by the First Defendant Seeking Transfer of Proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
The first defendant's application to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland was refused.
Legal Topics
['transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'interests of Justice' 'non Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'inherent Jurisdiction Over Solicitors' 'costs of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'cross Vesting' 'legal Profession'] ['transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'interests of Justice' 'non Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'inherent Jurisdiction Over Solicitors' 'costs of Motion']

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 Transfer Application / Notice of Motion by the First Defendant Seeking Transfer of Proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was in the interests of justice under s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland.' 'What weight should be given to the Queensland governing law and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the Asset Management Agreements.' "Whether the claims against a New South Wales solicitor invoking the Supreme Court of New South Wales' inherent jurisdiction made New South Wales an appropriate forum." 'Whether delay, convenience, costs and connecting factors supported transfer.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant did not establish that the Supreme Court of Queensland was the more appropriate forum in the interests of justice. The non-exclusive Queensland jurisdiction clause carried little weight because the contractual issues did not raise Queensland-specific law and the clause did not mandate Queensland proceedings. The claims against Mr Polo invoked substantive New South Wales issues concerning the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales over a New South Wales solicitor and legal practice. Those factors, together with the delay in seeking transfer, likely additional costs and delay to the plaintiffs, and the absence of a preponderance of connecting...

Court Disposition

The first defendant's application to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland was refused.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed by the first defendant on 19 May 2021 be dismissed.' "The first defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion, as agreed or assessed."]