SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Beckett v Lemanski |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 322 |
Hearing Date: | 15 November 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 19 November 2019 |
Before: | Crowe AJ |
Decision: | See [20] |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CROSS-VESTING LEGISLATION – Application to transfer to NSW Supreme Court in accordance with the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1993 (ACT) – preponderance of connecting factors with NSW – uncertainty as to the ability of the parties to obtain a hearing date if the matter is cross-vested – greater certainty as to the timely completion of the matter if heard in the ACT – consideration of the interests of justice – application dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Compensation to Relatives Act 1987 (NSW) Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) |
Cases Cited: | Bailey-Brown Southern New South Wales Local Health District [2019] ACTSC 78 Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd & ors [2013] ACTSC 78, 8 ACTLR 13 |
Texts/material cited | District Court Amendment Bill 1997 (NSW) New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 26 June 1997, Second Reading Speech (The Hon. M. R. Egan) |
Parties: | Raylene Beckett (First Plaintiff) Logan Beckett By His Next Friend Raylene Beckett (Second Plaintiff) Jarod Beckett By His Next Friend Raylene Beckett (Third Plaintiff) Phoebe Beckett By Her Next Friend Raylene Beckett (Fourth Plaintiff) Leslie Lemanski (First Defendant) Transport Accident Commission of Victoria (Second Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel J Turnbull SC (Plaintiffs) R de Meryick (Defendants) |
| Solicitors Holman Webb (Plaintiffs) Gabbedy Milson Lee (Defendants) | |
File Number: | SC 406 of 2019 |
Crowe AJ
On 13 August 2016, the late Jason Beckett was driving from his home in Wamboin NSW along Sutton Road. The late Leslie Lemanski was driving his vehicle in the opposite direction. Mr Lemanski’s vehicle veered into the path of Mr Beckett’s vehicle and they collided head on. Both men died as a result of the injuries sustained in the collision.
Mr Beckett left a widow and three children. Two of the children have special needs and present with behavioural difficulties. Ms Becket and the children continue to live at the Wamboin property.
Ms Beckett in her own right and as litigation guardian for the children commenced proceedings in this Court on 25 September 2019 seeking damages resulting from the death of Mr Beckett. The defendants have admitted liability and take no issue with respect to any time limits.
By Application in Proceeding filed on 4 October 2019, the defendants seek an order pursuant to sub-s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1993 (ACT) (Cross-vesting Act) transferring the proceedings to the Supreme Court of NSW. The defendants undertake, through their counsel Mr Turnbull SC, that if the matter is transferred to that Court they will apply to have it further transferred to the District Court of NSW, for hearing at the Queanbeyan sittings of the Court.
The evidence before me consisted of:
(a)The affidavit of Natasha Miller, affirmed on 23 September…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Beckett v Lemanski and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 322
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to this case revolved around the interpretation and application of the cross-vesting provisions within the Act, as well as the broader consideration of the interests of justice. The court had to weigh the connecting factors such as the location of witnesses and evidence, the place where the events giving rise to the proceedings occurred, and the domicile of the parties. Additionally, the court needed to consider the practical implications of a transfer, including the efficiency and expeditiousness of the proceedings in both jurisdictions.
In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the transfer of a case truly serves the interests of justice. Although the majority of connecting factors pointed towards NSW, the court found that the uncertainty regarding the ability to obtain a hearing date in that jurisdiction, coupled with the greater certainty of a timely conclusion in the ACT, led to the decision that the application should be dismissed. The court held that the interests of justice were best served by maintaining the case within the ACT Supreme Court, thereby ensuring a more predictable timeline for the resolution of the dispute.
No specific orders were made in this case beyond the dismissal of the application. The matter remained in the ACT Supreme Court, where it continued to be heard and determined.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [20]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.