| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. 3559 of 2010
| CHRISTINE IRWIN | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| STATE OF QUEENSLAND | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | ROBSON J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 13 May 2011 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 27 June 2011 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Irwin v State of Queensland | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2011] VSC 291 | |
---
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to transfer proceedings to Supreme Court of Queensland – The plaintiff’s son was unlawfully killed in the course of his duties as a Queensland police officer – The plaintiff, then in the Northern Territory, allegedly suffered nervous shock injuries as result – The plaintiff, residing in Victoria commenced proceedings for damages against the Queensland government (the Queensland police) – Application to transfer proceeding to the Supreme Court of Queensland - Whether interests of justice that proceeding be determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland – Plaintiff’s medico legal experts and treating doctors practicing in Melbourne – Witnesses of police actions in Queensland – Plaintiff suffering psychiatric injuries – Difficulties to plaintiff of conducting proceeding in Queensland – Relevance of video link evidence discussed – Application refused – Section 5 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1997.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant/Defendant | Mr R W Dyer | Victorian Government Solicitor |
| For the Respondent/Plaintiff | Mr J P Brett | Arnold Thomas & Becker |
HIS HONOUR:
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Mrs Irwin’s son, Brett Andrew Irwin, was murdered in Brisbane whilst on police duties. Mrs Irwin was residing in the Northern Territory at the time. She now lives in Melbourne. Mrs Irwin claims to have suffered psychological and psychiatric injuries as a result of her learning of the death of her son. She has issued proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria claiming negligence on the part of the Queensland Police in dispatching her son to the home of the man who murdered him.
Constable Irwin was a constable in the Queensland police. On the night of his killing, he was on duty at the police station at Ferny Grove in north-west Brisbane. At the time, Sergeant Kylie Dunn was acting as the shift supervisor and station sergeant. Sergeant Dunn dispatched Constable Irwin and Constable Edwards to execute a warrant against Mr Craig Semyraha at 6 Regan Street, Keperra in north-west Brisbane. They arrived at the premises at about 10.30pm. Shortly afterwards, Constable Irwin was shot, apparently by Craig Semyraha. The Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) attended. SERT entered the house and found Craig Semyraha had turned his gun on himself with a single shot to the temple. He was dead. Constable Irwin was found in the yard of the premises. He was also dead.
Earlier that night, and unknown to Sergeant Dunn or the two constables, Craig Semyraha had committed an armed robbery at a motel in Kippa-Ring to the north of Brisbane. His involvement in the armed robbery was not discovered by the police until after he killed himself.
Mrs Irwin claims that the Queensland police failed…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Irwin v State of Queensland 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
- [2011] VSC 291
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the application to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland aligned with the interests of justice. Factors considered included the plaintiff's access to medical experts and treating doctors in Melbourne, the location of witnesses who could testify about the police actions in Queensland, and the difficulties the plaintiff would face in conducting the proceeding in Queensland. The relevance of video link evidence was also discussed, given the geographical and logistical challenges. After considering these factors, the court concluded that the application did not meet the threshold required under section 5 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1997.
The court found that while the plaintiff's circumstances and the location of relevant witnesses presented challenges, these did not sufficiently outweigh the principle that the case should be heard in the jurisdiction where the events giving rise to the claim occurred. The court emphasised the importance of the jurisdictional provisions in determining the appropriate forum for the case. Consequently, the application to transfer the proceedings was refused. The plaintiff's claim would remain in the County Court of Victoria.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application refused
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.