Du Plessis Auction Gallery Pty Ltd & Ors (trading as Du Plessis Galleries) v Bacchil Nominees Pty Ltd (trading as Saffars Genuine Persian Carpets & Anor)

Du Plessis Auction Gallery Pty Ltd and its directors, trading as Du Plessis Galleries, initiated proceedings against Bacchil Nominees Pty Ltd, trading as Saffars Genuine Persian Carpets, and Hoochiyar Saffar, seeking relief under contract law. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of contract related to the sale of Persian carpets. The matter was initially filed in the Federal Court of Australia, but both parties sought to transfer the case to the Supreme Court of Victoria, invoking the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987. The core legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate forum for the dispute resolution, considering the potential for forum shopping, and assessing the interests of justice in transferring the proceedings to another court.

The court examined the cross-vesting legislation and the principle of forum non conveniens to determine whether transferring the case to the Supreme Court of Victoria was appropriate. The court recognised that the plaintiffs had initially filed their claim in the Federal Court but subsequently applied to transfer the case to the Supreme Court of Victoria, while the defendants had also filed an application to transfer the case to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court had to balance the interests of justice against the potential for forum shopping and consider which court was best suited to hear and determine the matter. The court also needed to ensure that the transfer would not result in an unfair advantage to either party.

After considering the submissions from both parties and the relevant legal principles, the court decided that the proceeding should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court found that transferring the case to Victoria was in the interests of justice, given the connections of the parties and the subject matter of the dispute. The court also considered the efficiency of the proceedings and the convenience of the witnesses. The court ordered the transfer of the case to the Supreme Court of Victoria and made orders regarding the costs associated with the transfer applications. The applicants were to bear the costs of the respondents' notice of motion, while the other costs were to be costs in the cause.