Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pty Ltd v Puri [2016] NSWSC 150

Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pty Ltd v Puri [2016] NSWSC 150

The proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria because the employment contract's clause 10, construed in context, was a submission to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the defendant's State of domicile, Victoria, for any dispute arising under or in connection with the agreement, including interlocutory injunctive relief. Even apart from clause 10, the events, witnesses and alleged breaches were connected with Victoria and it was clearly in the interests of justice to transfer the proceeding under s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Applications for Interlocutory Injunction and Stay or Transfer of Proceedings / Interlocutory Notices of Motion in the Equity Duty List
Outcome
Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria; the plaintiff's interlocutory injunction application was not heard or determined in New South Wales.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'restraint of Trade' 'cross Vesting']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment Law' 'conflict of Laws'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'exclusive Jurisdiction Clause' 'restraint of Trade' 'cross Vesting']

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

Applications for Interlocutory Injunction and Stay or Transfer of Proceedings / Interlocutory Notices of Motion in the Equity Duty List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be stayed or transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.' 'Whether clause 10 of the employment contract was a submission to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Victoria.' "Whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales should hear and determine the plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunctive relief before transfer."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria because the employment contract's clause 10, construed in context, was a submission to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the defendant's State of domicile, Victoria, for any dispute arising under or in connection with the agreement, including interlocutory injunctive relief. Even apart from clause 10, the events, witnesses and alleged breaches were connected with Victoria and it was clearly in the interests of justice to transfer the proceeding under s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria; the plaintiff's interlocutory injunction application was not heard or determined in New South Wales.

Orders

  • ['Upon the plaintiff by its counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages, note the undertaking given by the defendant through his counsel to the Court that until the final determination of these proceedings or earlier further order, he will not on his own account or in association with any other person or...