Gallard v Henderson [2019] NSWSC 12

Gallard v Henderson [2019] NSWSC 12

The Supreme Court of Queensland was the more appropriate forum because, having regard to the interests of justice and the parties' consent, the only obvious connection with New South Wales was the place of practice of the plaintiff's legal advisers, whereas Queensland was the plaintiff's place of residence, the defendants' place of medical practice when treating the plaintiff, the place where the relevant surgeries occurred, the source of the governing statute law for liability and damages, and the likely residence of many material witnesses.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Cross Vesting Motion in Medical Negligence Proceedings / In Chambers – on the Papers
Outcome
Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland; each party to bear his or her own costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['cross Vesting' 'transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'interests of Justice' 'consent Judgment']
['civil Procedure' 'medical Negligence'] ['cross Vesting' 'transfer to Another Supreme Court' 'interests of Justice' 'consent Judgment']

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 Procedure Cross Vesting Motion in Medical Negligence Proceedings / In Chambers – on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland under s 5(2) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987.' 'Whether the Court could make transfer orders solely by consent or was required to make its own assessment of the more appropriate forum.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Queensland was the more appropriate forum because, having regard to the interests of justice and the parties' consent, the only obvious connection with New South Wales was the place of practice of the plaintiff's legal advisers, whereas Queensland was the plaintiff's place of residence, the defendants' place of medical practice when treating the plaintiff, the place where the relevant surgeries occurred, the source of the governing statute law for liability and damages, and the likely residence of many material witnesses.

Court Disposition

Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland; each party to bear his or her own costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Under s 5(2) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987, these proceedings are transferred for determination by the Supreme Court of Queensland;' 'Each party is to bear his or her own costs of the motion.']