Custance v SC Admin Pty Ltd

Custance v SC Admin Pty Ltd involved an application for the transfer of a proceeding from the Sydney Registry of the Federal Court to the Queensland District Registry. The applicants, Custance, sought to transfer the proceeding on the basis that the majority of their witnesses were located in Queensland and the convenience of the witnesses favoured the transfer. SC Admin Pty Ltd opposed the transfer, arguing that the choice of jurisdiction clause in their contracts with Custance should be given weight and that the proceeding was not central to the contracts. The legal issues before the Court included the weight to be given to a choice of jurisdiction clause and the factors to be considered in determining whether to grant a transfer of proceeding under s 48 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 2.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

The Court found that the choice of jurisdiction clause in the contracts did not appear to be central to the claims made by Custance. While the clause was a relevant consideration, the Court held that it was not determinative. The Court also considered the convenience of witnesses, which numerically favoured the transfer but was not overwhelmingly so. Additionally, the Court found that the electronic exchange of documents rendered the location of the documents a neutral factor. The Court further noted that while there was some delay in bringing the proceeding, it was not significant. Overall, the Court was not satisfied that the proceeding should be transferred to the Queensland District Registry.

The Court dismissed the application for an order transferring the proceeding to the Queensland District Registry. The Court held that the factors considered did not warrant a transfer of the proceeding. The Court also noted that the delay in bringing the proceeding was not significant and that the electronic exchange of documents made the location of the documents a neutral factor. The Court concluded that the application for a transfer of proceeding should be dismissed. The Court's decision was in line with the relevant provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).