State of Queensland v Gilfillan [2015] NSWSC 945

State of Queensland v Gilfillan [2015] NSWSC 945

Because the proceedings had a close connection with Queensland, including the location of many lay and expert witnesses and the First Defendant's attendance at Queensland schools at the relevant time, and because all parties agreed to the orders, it was in the interests of justice that the proceedings be determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to Remove District Court Proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and Remit Them to the Supreme Court of Queensland Under Cross Vesting Legislation / Consent Orders on Application
Outcome
Application granted by consent; proceedings removed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland.
Legal Topics
['cross Vesting Between Courts' 'removal of District Court Proceedings' 'remitter to Supreme Court of Queensland' 'interests of Justice']
['civil Procedure'] ['cross Vesting Between Courts' 'removal of District Court Proceedings' 'remitter to Supreme Court of Queensland' 'interests of Justice']

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

Application to Remove District Court Proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and Remit Them to the Supreme Court of Queensland Under Cross Vesting Legislation / Consent Orders on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales should be removed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland pursuant to cross-vesting legislation.' 'Whether it was in the interests of justice for the proceedings to be determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland given their connection with Queensland.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proceedings had a close connection with Queensland, including the location of many lay and expert witnesses and the First Defendant's attendance at Queensland schools at the relevant time, and because all parties agreed to the orders, it was in the interests of justice that the proceedings be determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Court Disposition

Application granted by consent; proceedings removed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings No. 2011/382630 in the District Court of NSW at Sydney between Jessica Gilfillan v The Australian School Sports Council Inc & Ors be removed to this Court.' 'Proceedings be remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland pursuant to the jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).' "Costs of the...