Albin Erich Richsteiger v Century Geophysical Corporation

[1995] IRCA 546

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

TI 1256 of 1995

BETWEEN:

ALBIN ERICH RICHSTEIGER
Applicant

AND:

CENTURY GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
Respondent

Before:                Judical Registrar Parkinson
Place:                   Hobart
Date:                   28 September 1995                

PROCEDURAL RULING

This is my ruling in relation to an application made by notice of motion filed by the respondent on 18 September, 1995 that the proceedings which were initiated in Hobart, be transferred pursuant to order 10 r.1.sr. 2.(f) of the Industrial Relations Court Rules. 

The applicant submitted that the proceedings ought not be transferred because the  application was lodged in Hobart and the applicant has retained legal representatives in Hobart.

The respondent submits that the proceedings ought be transferred for the following reasons:

1. That the place of work in the application was Holden Hill, in South
            Australia.

2. That the administrative centre of the respondent is in Holden Hill,
            South Australia.

3. That the place of residence of the applicant is in Highbury, South
            Australia.

4. That the respondent has retained South Australian legal
            representatives.

There is no evidence before me to suggest that there is a significant cost burden to the applicant in transferring the proceedings to Adelaide, nor that there is sufficient basis for claiming that the necessity to obtain or instruct other solicitors in Adelaide is overly burdensome. There is no material before me which would suggest that significant expense would be incurred for the applicant as a result of transferring the proceedings, which expense would outweigh the very relevant  and weighty factors which have been raised by the respondent.

I am satisfied as a result of the material relied upon by the respondent in this application, including the application filed by the applicant and the notice of appearance filed by the respondent, together with the affidavit material of the applicant, that the convenient course for the hearing of the application made pursuant to S170EA would be that the matter be transferred to the Adelaide Registry of this court. In so determining I have read the affidavit of Mr Schroder, solicitor for the respondent, upon which he did not rely in the face of an application by Mr Crotty, solicitor for the applicant, to cross examine him on that affidavit. I did not rule in relation to that application.

In making this procedural ruling I have had regard to the matters set out above and raised by the respondent, together with the additional fact that this is a proceeding arising out of S170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and is concerned with issues arising out of and associated with the alleged employment of the applicant by the respondent. It seems to me that in the absence of substantial reason to the contrary, or the consent of the parties, the hearings ought take place at the location which is most closely and conveniently related to the employment.

Having regard to my ruling in relation to the transfer of the proceedings and the orders to be made as a result, it is my ruling that the proceedings in their entirety be transferred and that all matters arising out of the application, including any outstanding aspect of the notice of motion of the respondent filed on 18 September, 1995 and the applicant’s notice of motion filed on 26 September, 1995 be transferred.

This court orders and directs that the proceeding in matter no. TI95/ 1256
be transferred to the Adelaide Registry of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia and that pursuant to Order 10 r1.sr.2 (f) the registrar take all necessary steps.

I  certify that this and the preceding
2 pages are a true copy of the reasons
for ruling given by Judicial Registrar Parkinson
at Hobart on 28 September 1995.

Associate:  
Date:          
Place: