Thomson Aviation Pty Ltd v Dufresne [2011] NSWSC 864

Thomson Aviation Pty Ltd v Dufresne [2011] NSWSC 864

The inconvenience to Longview of defending the cross-claim in NSW is not substantial, especially with modern videolink and procedures, and does not outweigh the prejudice, risk of inconsistent findings, and duplicated costs Mr Dufresne would suffer if forced to litigate in Canada. This Court is not a clearly inappropriate forum for the cross-claim.

Parties
Plaintiff: Thomson Aviation Pty Ltd; Defendant/cross Claimant: Michael Dufresne; Cross Defendant: Resinco Capital Partners Inc (formerly Longview Capital Partners Inc)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Motion to Strike Out Cross Claim
Outcome
Motion to strike out Cross-Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Inappropriate Forum, Cross Claim, Forum Non Conveniens, Application to Strike Out, Service Outside Jurisdiction
Private International Law Civil Procedure Inappropriate Forum Cross Claim Forum Non Conveniens Application to Strike Out Service Outside Jurisdiction

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomson Aviation Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Michael Dufresne

Defendant/cross Claimant

Resinco Capital Partners Inc (formerly Longview Capital Partners Inc)

Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Motion to Strike Out Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of NSW is a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of a cross-claim against a foreign company
  2. 2 Whether the cross-claim should be struck out or stayed on forum non conveniens grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The inconvenience to Longview of defending the cross-claim in NSW is not substantial, especially with modern videolink and procedures, and does not outweigh the prejudice, risk of inconsistent findings, and duplicated costs Mr Dufresne would suffer if forced to litigate in Canada. This Court is not a clearly inappropriate forum for the cross-claim.

Court Disposition

Motion to strike out Cross-Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Motion filed by Longview to set aside Cross-Claim is dismissed
  • Longview to pay Mr Dufresne's costs of and incidental to the motion (subject to hearing from Counsel)