Miller v Jones

In the matter of Miller v Jones, the plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant, a medical practitioner practicing in France, for damages arising from alleged negligence in performing surgery. The surgery in question took place in France, necessitating the application of French law to the proceedings. All proposed witnesses for the plaintiff were located in Australia, with limited documentary evidence available in France. The defendant, a French national fluent in English, was opposed to the proceedings being heard in the Supreme Court of NSW, arguing that it was a clearly inappropriate forum. The plaintiff, a resident of New South Wales, was not fluent in French.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court of NSW was an appropriate forum to hear the matter, considering the geographical and linguistic challenges. The court needed to assess whether the defendant had discharged the onus of establishing that the proceedings should be stayed. This involved weighing the convenience of the parties, the location of the witnesses, and the availability of evidence against the principle of forum non conveniens.

The court found that the defendant had not successfully demonstrated that the Supreme Court of NSW was a clearly inappropriate forum. Factors considered included the defendant's fluency in English, the plaintiff's residency in New South Wales, and the limited documentary evidence available in France. The court held that the defendant's failure to discharge the onus meant that the proceedings should continue in the Supreme Court of NSW. Consequently, the notice of motion to stay the proceedings was dismissed.