Capilano Honey Ltd v Mulvany (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 767

Capilano Honey Ltd v Mulvany (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 767

The Supreme Court of Victoria was the more appropriate court. The plaintiffs were based in Queensland, the defendant lived in Victoria, the internet publications gave only limited and speculative nexus with New South Wales, the applicable law was neutral, and the convenience of Sydney lawyers did not outweigh the burden on a self-represented Victorian defendant who was sole parent of a young child. Although the defendant delayed in bringing the application and the plaintiffs had filed a contempt motion concerning New South Wales interlocutory orders, the interests of justice and procedural fairness favoured deferring determination of the contempt issues and transferring the primary...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Proceedings in Injurious Falsehood and Defamation Arising Out of Internet Publications / Defendant's Application Under Cross Vesting Legislation to Transfer the Proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Legal Topics
['cross Vesting Transfer' 'appropriate Forum' 'jurisdictional Nexus' 'delay in Transfer Application' 'contempt of Interlocutory Orders' 'procedural Fairness']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation' 'injurious Falsehood' 'jurisdiction'] ['cross Vesting Transfer' 'appropriate Forum' 'jurisdictional Nexus' 'delay in Transfer Application' 'contempt of Interlocutory Orders' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Proceedings in Injurious Falsehood and Defamation Arising Out of Internet Publications / Defendant's Application Under Cross Vesting Legislation to Transfer the Proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be transferred from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of Victoria under s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).' 'Whether delay in bringing the transfer application prevented or weighed against transfer.' 'Whether New South Wales or Victoria was the more appropriate court having regard to jurisdictional nexus, convenience and expense.' "Whether the plaintiffs' contempt motion concerning alleged breaches of interlocutory orders should cause the proceedings to remain in New South Wales."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Victoria was the more appropriate court. The plaintiffs were based in Queensland, the defendant lived in Victoria, the internet publications gave only limited and speculative nexus with New South Wales, the applicable law was neutral, and the convenience of Sydney lawyers did not outweigh the burden on a self-represented Victorian defendant who was sole parent of a young child. Although the defendant delayed in bringing the application and the plaintiffs had filed a contempt motion concerning New South Wales interlocutory orders, the interests of justice and procedural fairness favoured deferring determination of the contempt issues and transferring the primary...

Court Disposition

Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1897 (NSW), that the proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.']