Isaacman v King (No.2) - [2025] NSWSC 381

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Isaacman v King (No.2) [2025] NSWSC 381
Hearing dates: 21 February 2025; Last written submissions received 13 March 2025
Date of orders: 30 April 2025
Decision date: 30 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1)   The whole of these proceedings, Isaacman v King (2024/0004060), except for Order 3 below, be, with effect from seven days from the date of the publication of this judgment, stayed.
(2)   Order 1 will become effective provided that, within seven days of the publication of this judgment, the defendant by her solicitors is to file and serve a written undertaking to the Court to the effect that, in the event that the plaintiff brings civil proceedings in the State of New York concerning the subject matter of these proceedings, the defendant will not plead any defence based upon any statute or other law applicable in the State of New York relating to the limitation of actions provided:
(a)   the plaintiff commences his proceeding in New York within three months of the date upon which the stay of these proceedings comes into effect; and
(b)   the claims were not statute barred at the time the plaintiff commenced this proceeding in this Court.
(3)   The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the defendant’s forum non conveniens Motion.

Catchwords:
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – Jurisdiction – Non-exercise of jurisdiction – Forum non conveniens – Connecting factors – Application of the principles in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills – Whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales is a clearly inappropriate forum – Where neither plaintiff nor defendant has any real or substantive connection with the forum – Where the facts giving rise to the cause of action occurred outside the jurisdiction of the forum – Where the cost of litigating a claim in an inappropriate forum will be unduly excessive
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – Applicable law – Pleading of foreign law – Pleading of New York Public Health Law

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 s 7
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) s 5(2)
New York Public Health Law s 2307
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 6.43

Cases Cited:
Isaacman v King [2024] NSWSC 1291
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55; (1990) 171 CLR 538

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Steven Isaacman (Plaintiff / Respondent)
Meaghan King (Defendant / Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Glissan KC / J Charlton (Plaintiff / Respondent)
Dr N Petrie (Defendant / Applicant)
Solicitors:
Glissan & Associates (Plaintiff / Respondent)
Robinson Gill Lawyers (Defendant / Applicant)

File Number(s): 2024/40601
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, Steven Isaacman, brings proceedings against the defendant, Meaghan King, for damages arising by reason of various causes of action in accordance with the law of New York. The claims are based upon the fundamental assertion of fact that the defendant was responsible for transmission to the plaintiff of the Herpes Simplex Virus…

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.

Continue reading Isaacman v King (No.2)

Details

AGLC: Isaacman v King (No.2) [2025] NSWSC 381
Case: [2025] NSWSC 381
Decision Date: 30 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Isaacman v King (No.2) involved a legal dispute where the plaintiff, Isaacman, sought to bring a claim against the defendant, King, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's actions had caused harm, and the legal issues centred around the court's jurisdiction to hear the case and the applicable law. The nature of the dispute was complex, involving elements of private international law, particularly the principles of forum non conveniens and the application of foreign law.

The court was required to determine whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales was the appropriate forum for the case, considering the principles established in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills. The key legal issues included whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction given that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had any real or substantive connection to New South Wales. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the facts giving rise to the cause of action occurred outside the jurisdiction and whether litigating the claim in New South Wales would be unduly excessive in cost.

The court found that the Supreme Court of New South Wales was not the appropriate forum for the case, applying the principles of forum non conveniens. The court identified that neither party had any substantial connection to New South Wales, and the events in question occurred in New York. Furthermore, the court noted that the cost of litigating in an inappropriate forum would be excessively burdensome. The court also addressed the issue of applicable law, acknowledging that the plaintiff had pleaded New York Public Health Law as relevant to the case. The court concluded that the appropriate forum for the litigation was New York.

The final orders of the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for the Supreme Court of New South Wales to exercise jurisdiction over the case, and the court directed that the proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of litigation in New York. The court's decision underscored the importance of determining the most appropriate forum in cases involving international elements, ensuring that justice is served efficiently and effectively.

Orders