K. Biggs Enterprises Pty Ltd v P.E. Sykes & Partners

[1987] FCA 192

NOT FOR GENERAL

DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA .~ ~~.~ ~~~ ~ I

WESTERN AUSTRALIA 1

DISTRICT REGISTRY 1

GENERAL DIVISION	)	NO. WAG 93 of 1986
B E T W E E N :	K. BIGGS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Appl lcant

and

CORAM : FRENCH J.

~

23 March 1987

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR

This is a motion whereby the respondent seeks an order

that the trial of the action be directed to take place in Sydney

in the New South Wales Registry of the Court.

The application is one for damages under s.82 of the

Trade Practices Act 1974 and was instituted in the Perth Reqlstry

of the Court on 18 September 1986.

I

I	By its	statement	of claim the applicant sets	up	that	it	-
l	i

I	is a company incorporated in Western	Australia and carrying on
i
l
buslness in this state.

2.

I h c r e s p o n d e n t 1s a f i r m of v e t e r i n a r y s u r g e o n s which

c a r r i e s o n b u s l n e s s I n New Sou th Wales. T h e i r b u s i n e s s is s a i d t o

i n c l u d e t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f r a c e h o r s e s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f g i v l n g

a d v i c e t o p o t e n t l a l p u r c h a s e r s .

The a p p l i c a n t a l l e g e s t h a t i n December 1985 i t p u r c h a s e d

I a t h o r o u g h b r e d c o l t c a l l e d D r i v e n , f o r t h e sum of $ 4 7 , 5 0 0 , i t

i b e i n g a term of t h e c o n t r a c t t h a t t h e s a l e w a s s u b j e c t t o t h e

i c e r t l f i c a t i o n by a v e t e r i n a r y s u r g e o n t h a t t h e h o r s e was s u i t a b l e

€or p u r c h a s e a s a r a c e h o r s e .

The a p p l i c a n t s a y s t h a t I t r e q u e s t e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t to

I n s p e c t t h e h o r s e i n December 1985 and t o a d v i s e w h e t h e r i t was

s u l t a b l e f o r p u r c h a s e a s a r a c e h o r s e .

T h e s t a t e m e n t o f claim t h e n a l leges t h a t o n Wednesday,

1 8 December 1 9 8 5 t h e a p p l l c a n t b y its managlng d i r ec to r , Mr K .

B i g g s , t e l e p h o n e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t f r o m K a l g o o r l l e W e s t e r n i n

A u s t r a l l a t o i n q u i r e as to t h e i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e h o r s e a n d t h a t I n

t h e c o u r s e of t h a t t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n , a n e m p l o y e e of t h e

r e s p o n d e n t a d v i s e d B i g g s t h a t t h e h o r s e was s u i t a b l e for p u r c h a s e

a s a r a c e h o r s e . I n t h e g i v i n g of t h a t a d v i c e i t is s a i d t h e

r e s p o n d e n t was engaged In trade or commerce i n v o l v i n g t h e u s e of

i t e l e p h o n i c s e r v i c e s a n d s u c h t r a d e O K commerce was t r a d e o r

commerce among t h e S ta tes of A u s t r a l i a .

I i

I	T h l s	p l e a	is	e v i d e n t l y	se t	up	t o	a t t r a c t	t h e	e x t e n d e d
I

i o p e r a t i o n t h e T r a d e o f Practices Act.

I	__	.-
I	:

3 .

The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n is s a i d t o h a v e b e e n r e p e a t e d by a

! l e t t e r d a t e d 20 December 1985 and i n t h e r e p e t l t i o n was s a i d t o

i n v o l v e t h e u s e o f p o s t a l s e r v l c e s , a g a i n a p l e a d e s i g n e d t o

a t t r a c t t h e e x t e n d e d opera t lon o f t h e Act.

The a p p l i c a n t s a y s t h a t a c t i n g o n t h e a d v i c e a n d

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s I t p r o c e e d e d w l t h t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e h o r s e , b u t

i t h a t t h e a d v i c e a n d r e p r e s e n t a t l o n s were m l s l e a d i n g or d e c e p t i v e

i n t h a t t h e h o r s e a t t h e time o f t h e e x a m l n a t l o n s u f f e r e d f r o m a

n a v i c u l a r b o n e d i s e a s e r e n d e r i n g I t u n s u l t a b l e f o r r a c i n g , a n d

t h a t a s a r e s u l t o f t h a t c o n d u c t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s s u f f e r e d loss

and damage quan t i f l ed a s t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e v a l u e of t h e

l h o r s e as a r a c e h o r s e a n d i t s p r e s e n t v a l u e .

I n s u p p o r t of t h e m o t i o n , t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s so l ic i tor , Mr

W i s b e y , h a s s w o r n a n a f f i d a v i t i n w h l c h h e d e p o s e s t h a t h e h a s

b e e n i n f o r m e d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t a n d b e l i e v e s it t o be t r u e t h a t : -

I ?-- .

" ( a ) t h e r e s p o n d e n t was a t a l l m a t e r i a l times a f i rm o f

v e t e r i n a r y	s u r g e o n s	p r a c t i s i n g	a n d	r e s i d e n t	i n	t h e
S ta te o f	New South	Wales;

i n or about December 1985 for and a t t h e r e q u e s t o f

t h e a p p l i c a n t , r e s p o n d e n t t h e e x a m i n e d t h e

tho roughbred co l t t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e claim a n d t h a t

e x a m i n a t i o n was c a r r i e d o u t i n New Sou th Wales on

19 October 1985;

t h a t o n 18 December 1985 a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e

r e s p o n d e n t a d v i s e d a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t h e o f

a p p l i c a n t b y t e l e p h o n e t h e o f r e s u l t s of t h e

i n s p e c t i o n a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y i s s u e d a c e r t i f i c a t i o n

a s t o t h e e x a m i n a t i o n , t h a t c e r t i f i c a t i o n b e i n g

i s s u e d i n New South Wales."

r--

4 .

Mr Wlsbey's affidavit g o e s on to say that the applicant on 27 June 1986 Instituted proceedings in the Dlstrlct Court of Western Australla claiming damages for negligence arising out of the examlnatlon and certlficatlon In question. A conditional appearance was entered to that wrlt and an application successfully brought In the Distrlct Court to set aside the writ on the grounds that the cause of actlon arose in New South Wales and that ~ u r ~ s d l c t i o n to ligltate the dlspute rested with the appropriate court in New South Wales.

On 18 August an order was made by the Registrar of the

District Court setting aside the writ of summons.

Following that, the applicant commenced the present

action.

Mr Wisbey' s affidavit says that at the trial of the

action the respondent will be calling 4 witnesses, including the senior lecturer and the associate professor in the Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies at the University of Sydney, and that it would cause considerable inconvenience to the Department if it became necessary for those persons to be obliged to attend Perth for a trial of the action.

It is submitted therefore that it would be just and

proper and more convenient to the Court and the parties that the

trial of the action take place in Sydney.

5.

A p a r t f r o m t h e t w o e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s r e f e r r e d t o , Mr

Wlsbey Informed t h e c o u r t t h a t two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t h e o f

i

r e s p o n d e n t who reslde i n N e w South Wales would be glvlng evidence.

I n r e s p o n s e , Mr A i n s l l e h a s f l l e d a n a f f l d a v i t b a s e d o n

i n f o r m a t l o n g i v e n t o h l m by Mr Biggs , a dlrector o f t h e a p p l i c a n t ,

a n d w h i c h h e s a y s h e b e l i e v e s t o be t rue . T h a t a f f l d a v i t 1s t o

I

t h e f o l l o w i n g e f f e c t : -

( a ) T h a t t h e a t time t h a t B i g g s r e q u e s t e d t h e

e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e c o l t , t h e r e s p o n d e n t was aware

t h e c o l t was, i f p u r c h a s e d b y t h e a p p l i c a n t , t o be

t r a n s p o r t e d t o P e r t h :

(b) T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t h a t t h e c o l t was s u i t a b l e f o r

p u r c h a s e as a r a c e h o r s e was made to t h e a p p l i c a n t

on Wednesday, 18 December 1 9 8 5 a f t e r t h e r e l e v a n t

t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n :

( c ) T h e c e r t i f i c a t e w a s p o s t e d t o t h e a p p l i c a n t i n

W e s t e r n A u s t r a l i a :

( d ) The a p p l i c a n t will b e c a l l i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6

w i t n e s s e s , f o u r o f t h o s e w i t n e s s e s b e i n g v e t e r i n a r y

s u r g e o n s who a l l p r a c t i c e a n d r e s i d e i n P e r t h ,

Western A u s t r a l i a : and

( e ) T h e a c t l o n is a s f a r a s t h e a p p l i c a n t is c o n c e r n e d ,

i n a l l r e s p e c t s r e a d y f o r t r i a l .

I h a v e a l r e a d y h a d o c c a s i o n i n t h e mat ter of - TVW

E n t e r p r i s e s P t y L t d v Magna T e c h t r o n i c s ( u n r e p o r t e d F r e n c h J.

20/2/87) t o r e v i e w t h e a u t h o r i t i e s r e l e v a n t t o m o t l o n s f o r c h a n g e

I of venue and t he test a s a c c e p t e d i n t h a t case, f o l l o w i n g t h e test

a d o p t e d b y P i n k u s J . i n H o d d e r v T h e A u s t r a l i a n Workers Union

( 1 9 8 4 ) 4 FCR 5 4 1 , r e q u i r e s t h e p r o p o n e n t of a change of venue t o

l

e s t a b l i s h a m a n i f e s t p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f c o n v e n i e n c e I n f a v o u r o f

I I

t h a t c h a n g e .

I

l

6 .

This, has the effect of conferrlng some advantage on the

venue chosen by the appllcant but that is an advantage that

arises, not because of any partlcular sanctity attaching to that choice, but from publlc interest considerations that support the

application of a test whlch requires the establishment of a

manifest preponderance of convenience rather than a mere balance of convenience, and convenience, I think, is the critical and relevant test in a case of this kind.

The place of formation of the contract and the place at which a cause of action might arise at common law, unless bearing

L

r

upon the question of practical convenience in the sense to which I

referred in the TVW case, have really very little weight in r

determining the outcome of the particular motion.

In the present case the horse, the subject of the

action, is located in Western Australia. The applicant carries on

business in this state: 4 of its witnesses will be veterinary

surgeons who practice and reside in Western Australia, and

presumably insofar as any prlnclpals of the applicant are called,

it would appear that they also reside in this State.

On the other hand, the members of the respondent

partnership carry on their buslness in New South Wales and have

arranged to call two expert witnesses who also reside in that

State, although significantly I note, that in Mr Wisbey's

affidavit, it is simply said of the requirement to call those

I

7.

e x p e r t witnesses to g i v e e v l d e n c e I n p r o c e e d i n g s i n P e r t h , t h a t I t

i

I would c a u s e c o n s l d e r a b l e i n c o n v e n l e n c e to t h e Department .

Although i t 1s n o t s a i d , I suppose one c a n I n f e r , t h a t i t would

a l s o be a n a d d e d b u r d e n t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t , t h o u g h p r e s u m a b l y

r e c o v e r a b l e	I n	c o s t s	i n	t h e	e v e n t	of	a	s u c c e s s f u l	d e f e n c e	of	t h e
p r o c e e d i n g s .

A f t e r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e e v l d e n c e , w h l l e t h e b a l a n c e

!

i o f c o n v e n i e n c e seems to b e f a i r l y e v e n a s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , I

am n o t s a t i s f i e d t h a t a n y m a n i f e s t p r e p o n d e r a n c e of conven lence

h a s b e e n demonstrated which would w a r r a n t t h e m a k i n g o f t h e order

I	s o u g h t .	T h a t	IS	n o t	t o s a y i t may	n o t	b e	p o s s i b l e	t o	a r r a n g e	f o r
!

e v i d e n c e o f a p a r t i c u l a r w i t n e s s t o b e t a k e n i n N e w Sou th Wales i f

t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a r r a n t it.

j However a p p l y i n g t h e test t h a t I h a v e a l r e a d y r e f e r r e d

t o , t h i s m o t l o n m u s t b e d i s m i s s e d .

The m o t i o n f o r c h a n g e of venue w l l l be dlsmissed and

I

t h e r e w i l l be a n o r d e r t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t p a y t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s

costs o f t h e mot ion .

I w i l l make t h e f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t i o n s : -

1. T h e a p p l l c a n t a p p l y t o t h e R e g i s t r a r w i t h i n 1 4 d a y s f o r

a n a p p o i n t m e n t to l i s t t h e matter f o r t r i a l .

2. T h e r e b e l i b e r t y t o e i t h e r p a r t y t o a p p l y for d i r e c t i o n s

o n 48 hours not ice .

--

' h

l

1

i e .

I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e p r e c e d i n g

s e v e n ( 7 1 p a g e s a r e a t r u e

c o p y h e r e i n o f t h e R e a s o n s

f o r J u d g m e n t of h i s Honour

Mr J u s t l c e F r e n c h

i

;	Counse l
l
I
. f o r t h e A p p l i c a n t : Mr R . J . A i n s l i e
l	I
I	i n s t r u c t e d M a l l e s o n s b y S t e p h e n J a q u e s
I I I
~	. for t he Responden t : Mr J. Wisbey
I n s t r u c t e d b y H . J . Wisbey & A s s o c i a t e s
Date o f Hea r lng : 2 3 March 1987
I
Date of Judgment: 2 3 March 1987
!
,

I