Bakers Delight (WA) Pty Ltd v Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd
[2000] VSC 192
•19 May 2000
| 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.
---
1
0
0