JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LTD v BARRY & ANOR; SELTSAM PTY LTD V BARRY & ANOR [2000] NSWCA 353

JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LTD v BARRY & ANOR; SELTSAM PTY LTD V BARRY & ANOR [2000] NSWCA 353

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to remove and transfer to Queensland a proceeding pending in the Dust Diseases Tribunal under the Cross-vesting Act, but the Tribunal itself does not. The unique procedural advantages conferred by sections 25(3), 25A, and 25B of the DDT Act are significant for the efficient and expeditious resolution of the case and do not contravene s118 of the Constitution when applied to Queensland torts. The interests of justice, assessed by the appropriateness of forum and procedural efficiency, are best served by retaining the proceedings in the Tribunal rather than transferring them to Queensland, where substantial duplication, delay, and cost...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Application to Transfer Proceedings / Court of Appeal Determination of Transfer Application
Outcome
Applications for transfer dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings' 'cross Vesting Jurisdiction' 'choice of Law in Tort' 'forum Non Conveniens' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (nsw)' 'section 118 of the Constitution' 'section 117 of the Constitution' 'section 12 a, 25(3), 25 a, 25 B DDT Act']
['civil Procedure' 'conflict of Laws' 'tort Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['transfer of Proceedings' 'cross Vesting Jurisdiction' 'choice of Law in Tort' 'forum Non Conveniens' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (nsw)' 'section 118 of the Constitution' 'section 117 of the Constitution' 'section 12 A, 25(3), 25 A, 25 B DDT Act']

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

Application to Transfer Proceedings / Court of Appeal Determination of Transfer Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court of NSW can remove and transfer to Queensland a proceeding pending in the Dust Diseases Tribunal under the Cross-vesting Act' 'Whether the Dust Diseases Tribunal itself has jurisdiction to transfer the matter' 'Whether ss12A, 25(3), 25A, 25B of the DDT Act can apply to torts occurring in Queensland and/or are overridden by the lex loci delicti or Constitution s118' "Whether it is in 'the interests of justice' to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland under s5(2)(b)(iii) of the Cross-vesting Act"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to remove and transfer to Queensland a proceeding pending in the Dust Diseases Tribunal under the Cross-vesting Act, but the Tribunal itself does not. The unique procedural advantages conferred by sections 25(3), 25A, and 25B of the DDT Act are significant for the efficient and expeditious resolution of the case and do not contravene s118 of the Constitution when applied to Queensland torts. The interests of justice, assessed by the appropriateness of forum and procedural efficiency, are best served by retaining the proceedings in the Tribunal rather than transferring them to Queensland, where substantial duplication, delay, and cost...

Court Disposition

Applications for transfer dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Applications for transfer of proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed.' 'Applicants to pay the costs of the applications.']