Gresham Property Investments Limited v Global Consulting Services Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 415
The application failed because the connecting factors were evenly balanced between New South Wales and Victoria, the third and fourth defendants' interests added little to the balance, the likely issues appeared substantially documentary and concerned construction and operation of the Intercreditor Deed, the suggested cross-claim and valuation evidence were speculative, and cl 19.9 did not make Victoria the more appropriate forum because the jurisdiction submission was non-exclusive and no distinctive Victorian legal issue was identified. The evidence therefore did not justify concluding that Victoria was the more appropriate or natural forum, and the interests of justice did not require...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 April 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Equity Commercial List; Application to Cross Vest Proceedings to Supreme Court of Victoria / Notice of Motion Filed on 25 February 2016 Heard and Determined Ex Tempore
- Outcome
- Application to cross-vest proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed with costs payable by the first and second defendants to the plaintiff; no order as to the costs of the third and fourth defendants.
- Legal Topics
- ['transfer of Proceedings' 'interests of Justice' 'natural Forum' 'connecting Factors' 'costs']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Application to Cross Vest Proceedings to Supreme Court of Victoria / Notice of Motion Filed on 25 February 2016 Heard and Determined Ex Tempore
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria under s 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987.' 'Whether the interests of justice required transfer having regard to connecting factors including convenience, expense, location of parties, legal advisers, documents, witnesses, funds and real estate, the governing law clause and non-exclusive jurisdiction clause.' 'Whether speculative possible cross-claims or valuation evidence justified treating Victoria as the more appropriate or natural forum.']
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed because the connecting factors were evenly balanced between New South Wales and Victoria, the third and fourth defendants' interests added little to the balance, the likely issues appeared substantially documentary and concerned construction and operation of the Intercreditor Deed, the suggested cross-claim and valuation evidence were speculative, and cl 19.9 did not make Victoria the more appropriate forum because the jurisdiction submission was non-exclusive and no distinctive Victorian legal issue was identified. The evidence therefore did not justify concluding that Victoria was the more appropriate or natural forum, and the interests of justice did not require...
Court Disposition
Application to cross-vest proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed with costs payable by the first and second defendants to the plaintiff; no order as to the costs of the third and fourth defendants.
Orders
- ["The first and second defendants' notice of motion filed on 25 February 2016 is dismissed with costs." 'No order as to the costs of the third and fourth defendants.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment