Liferaft Servicing Group Pty Ltd v Brown

Case •

[2002] FCA 1647

•

6 SEPTEMBER 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Liferaft Servicing Group Pty Ltd v Brown [2002] FCA 1647

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to transfer to Victorian District Registry –efficient case management – convenience of parties

Federal Court Rules O 10 r 1(2)(f)

LIFERAFT SERVICING GROUP PTY LTD ACN 069 216 904 v STEVEN DAVID BROWN, AMEAR PTY LTD ACN 084 735 802, ALEXANDER MARITIME PTY LTD ACN 089 848 519, FLEET SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 096 753 598
W474 of 2001

LEE J
6 SEPTEMBER 2002
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W474 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

LIFERAFT SERVICING GROUP PTY LTD ACN 069 216 904
APPLICANT

AND:

STEVEN DAVID BROWN
FIRST RESPONDENT

AMEAR PTY LTD ACN 084 735 802
SECOND RESPONDENT

ALEXANDER MARITIME PTY LTD ACN 089 848 519
THIRD RESPONDENT

FLEET SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 096 753 598
FOURTH RESPONDENT

ZAKSPEED PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 006 505 675
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LEE J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 SEPTEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application to transfer the proceedings to the Victorian District Registry of the Court be refused.

2.The costs of the application be in the cause of the applicant.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W474 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

LIFERAFT SERVICING GROUP PTY LTD ACN 069 216 904
APPLICANT

AND:

STEVEN DAVID BROWN
FIRST RESPONDENT

AMEAR PTY LTD ACN 084 735 802
SECOND RESPONDENT

ALEXANDER MARITIME PTY LTD ACN 089 848 519
THIRD RESPONDENT

FLEET SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 096 753 598
FOURTH RESPONDENT

ZAKSPEED PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 006 505 675
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LEE J

DATE:

6 SEPTEMBER 2002

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEE J:

  1. This is an application pursuant to O 10 r 1(2)(f) of the Federal Court Rules by the 1st ‑ 4th respondents for an order that the matter be transferred to the Victorian District Registry of the Court.  The application draws attention to the national jurisdiction exercised by the Court.  In this case the parties carry on business, and witnesses reside, in different States.  To resolve where management of the litigation should be conducted it is necessary to look not only at the convenience of the parties and witnesses but also at the ability of the Court to deal with the matter most efficiently. 

  2. Efficient management of litigation is important to the Court and litigants.  Case management in this matter has been conducted in this Registry from the commencement of the proceeding and is well advanced.  If the proceeding remains in this Registry supervision of preparation of the matter for trial will be completed by a Judge and Registrars familiar with the issues that have arisen. 

  3. The next point to be made is that this is a national court in which it is not difficult to arrange for the trial to be conducted in several States if it is necessary to do so.  Furthermore, the Court has video-transmission facilities that may be used for witnesses for whom attendance at the place of trial is inconvenient.

  4. With regard to the liquidator of the 5th Respondent, recently joined as a party, it is inappropriate to speculate on what the attitude of the liquidator may be as to the “proper place” for the proceeding.  If the liquidator forms the opinion that fresh grounds exist for a further application to transfer the matter to the Victorian Registry that application, if made, will be dealt with on its merits.

  5. As far as the parties to the proceeding are concerned, inconvenience to one or more of them will occur whatever Registry of the Court is made the “proper place” for the proceeding.  On balance I can see no compelling cause to transfer the matter to the Victorian District Registry and, therefore, I decline to make the order sought.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lee.

Associate:

Dated:      2 July 2003

Counsel for the Applicant: M F Holler
Solicitor for the Applicant: Summers Partners
Counsel for the 1st – 4th Respondents: P K Walton
Solicitor for the 1st – 4th Respondents: Jackson McDonald
Date of Hearing: 6 September 2002
Date of Judgment: 6 September 2002
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0