Smits v Unicomb [2015] NSWDC 265

Smits v Unicomb [2015] NSWDC 265

The defendant did not show that the plaintiff commenced the proceedings in Lismore inappropriately, that Lismore was inconvenient in the relevant sense, or that there was no appropriate nexus to the North Coast region. The evidence showed dealings between the parties in that region and tended to confirm the plaintiff's location there.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Defended Claim for an Amount Allegedly Owing Under a Deed of Assignment / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Change of Venue Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Defendant's motion for change of venue dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['change of Venue' 'forum Convenience' 'costs']

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

Civil Defended Claim for an Amount Allegedly Owing Under a Deed of Assignment / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Change of Venue Determined on the Papers

  1. 1 ['Whether the venue for the hearing of the proceedings should be transferred from Lismore to Newcastle.' 'Whether the defendant demonstrated that the forum chosen by the plaintiff was inconvenient or lacked an appropriate nexus to the North Coast region.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not show that the plaintiff commenced the proceedings in Lismore inappropriately, that Lismore was inconvenient in the relevant sense, or that there was no appropriate nexus to the North Coast region. The evidence showed dealings between the parties in that region and tended to confirm the plaintiff's location there.

Court Disposition

Defendant's motion for change of venue dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's motion filed on 31 August 2015 seeking a change of venue from Lismore to Newcastle is dismissed." 'The defendant is to pay the costs of the dismissed motion.']