Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd - [2013] NSWSC 1020

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1020
Hearing dates: 24/7/13
Decision date: 24 July 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) Subject to the discretion of the trial judge, the hearing of this matter is to commence in Newcastle on 28 October 2013 and resume in Sydney for the completion of the evidence and final addresses.
(2) I direct the parties to approach the listing manager forthwith, by which I mean with all due despatch, in order to initiate the process of making suitable arrangements to carry order 1 into effect.
(3) I grant liberty to each party to apply on 3 days prior notice to the Common Law case management registrar and to the other side.
(4) Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.
(5) I will fix the defendant's application for an order requiring the plaintiff to keep the appointment with Dr Coolican for hearing before me at 3pm on Friday, 26 July 2013. I dispense with the need to file a motion but I direct that any affidavit which either party wishes to rely upon be lodged with my chambers before 4pm, Thursday, 25 July 2013.

Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - application for change of venue of hearing - no question of principle
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Ian Barry Campton (plaintiff)
Centennial Newstan Pty Limited (defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
P O'Rourke (plaintiff)
D Stanton (defendant)
Solicitors:
Whitelaw McDonald (plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore (defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/70316

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Campbell J: In this matter, the plaintiff applies for a change of venue from Sydney to Newcastle. The matter involves an industrial accident in a mine and the plaintiff, members of his family, other lay witnesses and his treating doctors all reside in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie region. The matter has been fixed for hearing commencing on 28 October 2013 which will run for several days.

The defendant is content for there to be a change of venue for the purpose of some evidence, provided it has the opportunity of calling its medical experts in Sydney. I am informed by counsel that there is a significant issue as to medical causation in the case. As against the plaintiff's position, the defendant at this stage is unsure whether it will have an expert on liability. That matter remains under consideration due to the late service of the plaintiff's liability expert report.

Since the matter was last before me the list judge, Garling J, has made detailed case management directions to bring the case to final preparation in a timely way to ensure it is ready to proceed on 28 October 2013. Those orders include, consistently with the current practice of the Court, the requirement that experts confer to produce a joint report, and give their evidence concurrently.

Many of the plaintiff's experts of a medical type, as I have said, are from the Newcastle region. Obviously, there will be significant preparations that will need to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWSC 1020
Decision Date: 24 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning a change of venue for a hearing. The plaintiff, Campton, sought to have the trial moved from Sydney to Melbourne, citing personal and logistical reasons. The defendant, Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd, opposed the motion, arguing that the change would be an undue inconvenience and would not significantly affect the fairness of the trial. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with determining whether the application for a change of venue was justified. The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a change of venue, considering factors such as the convenience of witnesses, the accessibility of evidence, and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. The court also needed to assess whether the application was made in a timely manner and whether there were any other relevant considerations that should influence the decision.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the plaintiff had not provided compelling reasons to support the change of venue. The court found that the plaintiff's personal reasons did not sufficiently outweigh the convenience and practicality of holding the trial in Sydney. Additionally, the court emphasised that the application was made late in the proceedings, which further undermined the justification for a change of venue. The court concluded that the application did not meet the threshold for a change of venue and dismissed the plaintiff's application.

The court did not provide any further orders beyond dismissing the application for a change of venue. The trial proceeded as scheduled in Sydney.

Orders