Morony v Reschke & Ors [2011] NSWSC 1139

Morony v Reschke & Ors [2011] NSWSC 1139

The interests of justice did not favour transfer because the competing factors were finely balanced, but the likely number of witnesses from New South Wales or the Australian Capital Territory, the relevance of evidence from the Sydney-based current responsible entity and other Sydney sources, the limited significance of document location, and the presence in Sydney of a director of the fifth defendant associated with the defendants' solicitors meant the matter should proceed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Corporations Proceeding Concerning Transfer of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by Defendants for Transfer to the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Defendants' notice of motion filed 17 May 2011 dismissed; proceedings to remain in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings' 'managed Investment Scheme' 'interests of Justice' 'appropriate Forum' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct']
['corporations' 'civil Procedure'] ['transfer of Proceedings' 'managed Investment Scheme' 'interests of Justice' 'appropriate Forum' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct']

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

Corporations Proceeding Concerning Transfer of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by Defendants for Transfer to the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, having regard to the interests of justice, it was more appropriate for the proceeding to be determined in the Supreme Court of South Australia or in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.' 'Whether factors including the location of parties, witnesses, documents, experts, applicable law and hardship favoured transfer under s 1337H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The interests of justice did not favour transfer because the competing factors were finely balanced, but the likely number of witnesses from New South Wales or the Australian Capital Territory, the relevance of evidence from the Sydney-based current responsible entity and other Sydney sources, the limited significance of document location, and the presence in Sydney of a director of the fifth defendant associated with the defendants' solicitors meant the matter should proceed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Court Disposition

Defendants' notice of motion filed 17 May 2011 dismissed; proceedings to remain in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Orders

  • ["Defendant's notice of motion filed 17 May 2011 dismissed." "Costs of the defendant's notice of motion will be the plaintiff's costs in the proceedings." 'The proceedings are adjourned to Monday, 12 September 2011 at 10.00am before the Corporations List Judge.']