Bakers Delight (WA) Pty Ltd v Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
PRACTICE COURT	Not Restricted

No. 4599 of 2000

BAKERS DELIGHT (W.A.) PTY. LTD.	Plaintiff
v.
WESTPOINT CORPORATION PTY. LTD. AND ANOTHER	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 MAY 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 MAY 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	BAKERS DELIGHT (W.A.) PTY. LTD. v. WESTPOINT CORPORATION PTY. LTD. & ANOR.
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 192

---

CATCHWORDS: Practice and Procedure – Cross-Vesting – Transfer of proceeding to Western Australia.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr. R.D. Shepherd	Mason Sier & Turnbull
For the Defendants	Mr. S.R. Horgan	Norton Gledhill

HIS HONOUR:

I have before me an application by the defendants to cross-vest this proceeding to the Supreme Court of Western Australia pursuant to s.5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Vic.)

Having considered the material placed before me by the parties it is my opinion that it is in the interests of justice that the defendants' application be granted. I say that for the following reasons:

(1)The defendants are companies incorporated in Western Australia and carry on business in that State.
(2)The premises the subject matter of the lease between the parties are in Western Australia.
(3)Many of the negotiations concerning the proposed "buy-back" agreement between the parties took place in Western Australia.
(4)The preponderance of witnesses to be called at the trial of the proceeding live in Western Australia.

In the affidavit he has sworn in opposition to the defendants' application the plaintiff's General Manager Property has placed strong reliance upon the fact that one of the principal witnesses to be called at the trial of the proceeding, Patricia Gardiner is presently on maternity leave having given birth to her second child in March, and that to require her to travel to Perth to give evidence in the case would cause a severe disruption to her family life.

In my opinion any inconvenience to Mrs. Gardiner can be minimised by having her evidence given by video link.

I order therefore that pursuant to the provisions of s.5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Vic.) this proceeding be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

I order that the costs of this application be the parties' costs in the cause.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bakers Delight (WA) Pty Ltd sued Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, seeking damages for breach of contract and other related claims. The dispute centred around a franchise agreement for a bakery in Western Australia. Westpoint was a franchisee under the agreement, while Bakers Delight was the franchisor. The crux of the matter was whether the Federal Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, specifically if the proceeding should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia under cross-vesting provisions.

The central legal issue was whether the Federal Circuit Court should transfer the case to the Supreme Court of Western Australia due to the local jurisdiction Act provisions. Bakers Delight argued that the court had jurisdiction over the matter given the franchise agreement's terms and the amount in dispute. Westpoint, on the other hand, contended that the case should be heard in Western Australia due to the location of the property and the franchise agreement's jurisdictional clause.

The Federal Circuit Court found that the cross-vesting provisions did apply, and the case was appropriately transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The court examined the franchise agreement and relevant jurisdictional clauses, concluding that the agreement's terms and the nature of the dispute pointed towards Western Australia as the more appropriate jurisdiction. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to jurisdictional mandates to ensure that parties receive a fair and unbiased hearing in their local courts. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the proceeding, directing that it be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established