Bartlett v Roffey

In this matter, Bartlett sought to bring a defamation action against Roffey in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Bartlett, who is domiciled in Western Australia, alleged that Roffey published defamatory statements about him in Melbourne-based media outlets. The publications were said to concern Bartlett's involvement with the Melbourne Football Club. Roffey applied to dismiss the case on the basis that the proper forum was Victoria due to the location of the publications and the subject matter. Bartlett opposed the application, arguing that the court should exercise jurisdiction over the case given his domicile and health considerations.

The court was required to decide whether the forum non conveniens doctrine applied and if Victoria was the more appropriate jurisdiction. The court needed to weigh Bartlett's domicile and health considerations against the location of the publications and the subject matter of the defamation. The court also needed to consider the choice of law provisions under the Defamation Act 2005 (WA) and determine if Western Australian law applied to the case.

The court found that the forum non conveniens doctrine applied and that Victoria was the more appropriate jurisdiction. The court considered Bartlett's domicile and health considerations, but ultimately found that these were outweighed by the location of the publications and the subject matter of the defamation. The court also found that Victorian law applied to the case and that Western Australian law did not apply. The court dismissed the case on the basis that Victoria was the more appropriate jurisdiction.

The court ordered that the case be dismissed and that the parties bear their own costs. The court also noted that the parties were free to bring proceedings in Victoria if they wished to do so.