Fertility Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Wendy Read & Charles Goble

The proceedings in question involved a cross-vesting application brought by Fertility Australia Pty Ltd and others against Wendy Read and Charles Goble. The dispute centred on claims of negligence arising from novel procedures during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. Similar issues were raised in proceedings in the NSW District Court. The applicants sought the removal of the District Court proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria, asserting that the proceedings in each state were related and that it was more appropriate for the Supreme Court of Victoria to deal with the matter. The matter was listed on a remote duty list, with a notice of motion filed in the midst of the duty list.

The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to transfer the District Court proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria, considering the relatedness of the proceedings in each state and the appropriateness of the Supreme Court of Victoria handling the matter. The applicants argued that the cross-vesting provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (Vic) supported the transfer of the proceedings. The respondents contested the application, asserting that the matters were not sufficiently related to warrant a transfer and that the District Court was the appropriate forum for the proceedings.

The court carefully considered the submissions made by both parties, noting the thorough and helpful nature of the arguments presented. It found that while the matters were related and involved similar issues, the cross-vesting provisions did not apply in this instance. However, the court acknowledged the potential for a misericordious development if the proceedings were not transferred to the same jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court declined to exercise its discretion to transfer the proceedings, as it was not a consent jurisdiction. The matter remained in the NSW District Court.

No specific final orders were made in this case, as the application for cross-vesting was dismissed. The parties were left to continue with their respective proceedings in their original jurisdictions.