Coastline Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Kakavas [2008] NSWSC 388

Coastline Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Kakavas [2008] NSWSC 388

Neither this Court nor the Victorian Supreme Court is more appropriate; the natural forum is Queensland, but no party seeks transfer there. No sufficient case for transfer to the Equity Division, Commercial List is made out. Both applications are refused on discretion and procedural grounds.

Parties
Plaintiff: Coastline Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Crackers Corporation Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Jarrod McCracken; Defendant: Harry Kakavas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications – Cross Vesting and Transfer to Commercial List
Outcome
Both the defendant's application to transfer to Victoria and the plaintiffs' application to transfer to the Commercial List are dismissed; costs orders made accordingly.
Legal Topics
Cross Vesting, Transfer of Proceedings, Commercial List, Forum Non Conveniens
Practice and Procedure Cross Vesting Transfer of Proceedings Commercial List Forum Non Conveniens

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coastline Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Crackers Corporation Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Jarrod McCracken

Plaintiff

Harry Kakavas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications – Cross Vesting and Transfer to Commercial List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria under cross-vesting legislation
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be transferred to the Commercial List of the Equity Division

Ratio Decidendi

Neither this Court nor the Victorian Supreme Court is more appropriate; the natural forum is Queensland, but no party seeks transfer there. No sufficient case for transfer to the Equity Division, Commercial List is made out. Both applications are refused on discretion and procedural grounds.

Court Disposition

Both the defendant's application to transfer to Victoria and the plaintiffs' application to transfer to the Commercial List are dismissed; costs orders made accordingly.

Orders

  • The defendant's application is dismissed.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of that application.