Robinson v Shirley [1982] HCA 1

Robinson v Shirley [1982] HCA 1

Because the accident occurred in Queensland and both actions should be heard together, they prima facie ought to be determined according to Queensland law by a Queensland court. The plaintiff did not show a sufficient balance of convenience favouring Sydney, particularly given the possible need for evidence about the Queensland intersection or an inspection. The actions were therefore remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland, with no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Original Jurisdiction Negligence Actions Claiming Damages for Personal Injuries / Applications Pursuant to S. 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 Cth for Orders Remitting the Actions to the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Both actions remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['remittal to State Supreme Court' 'choice of Forum' 'personal Injury Negligence' 'limitation of Actions' 'survival of Causes of Action' 'service and Execution of Process']
['torts' 'civil Procedure' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'conflict of Laws'] ['remittal to State Supreme Court' 'choice of Forum' 'personal Injury Negligence' 'limitation of Actions' 'survival of Causes of Action' 'service and Execution of Process']

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

Original Jurisdiction Negligence Actions Claiming Damages for Personal Injuries / Applications Pursuant to S. 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 Cth for Orders Remitting the Actions to the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the actions should be remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland or the Supreme Court of New South Wales.' 'Whether the Queensland limitation statute would affect the claims if the actions were remitted.' "Whether statutes relating to survival of causes of action affected Mr. Robinson's claim after his death." 'Whether convenience of witnesses and possible inspection justified remittal to New South Wales.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the accident occurred in Queensland and both actions should be heard together, they prima facie ought to be determined according to Queensland law by a Queensland court. The plaintiff did not show a sufficient balance of convenience favouring Sydney, particularly given the possible need for evidence about the Queensland intersection or an inspection. The actions were therefore remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Both actions remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Both actions be remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland.' "There will be no order as to the costs of the application for remittal, the delivery of a reply and demurrer in Mrs. Robinson's action, or the striking out of parts of the pleadings delivered."]