Monro v Hobart City Church of Christ

[2024] NSWSC 1274

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Monro v Hobart City Church of Christ [2024] NSWSC 1274

Hearing dates:

16 September 2024

Date of orders:

16 September 2024

Decision date:

16 September 2024

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Garling J

Decision:

1. Order Pursuant to s 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) that the whole of the proceedings be transferred to and dealt with by the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

2.   Order that the costs of and associated with the proceedings in this Court be costs in the cause in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Cross-vesting – Transfer to other Supreme Court – Proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

Legislation Cited:

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Not Applicable

Texts Cited:

Not Applicable

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

David Alister Monro (P)
Hobart City Church of Christ (D1)
The Hutchins School (D2)

Representation:

Counsel:
O Matiouk (P)
G Devery (D1)
A Do (D2)

Solicitors:
Gerard Malouf & Partners
G C Legal (D1)
Kennedys Law (D2)

File Number(s):

2024/202107

Publication restriction:

Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings have been brought by the plaintiff who is presently 51 years old, claiming damages for the consequences of historic sexual abuse he suffered between 1986 and 1988 whilst a member of the congregation of the Hobart City Church of Christ, which was located in Hobart. The plaintiff also claims damages for sexual assault by an employee of the second defendant, the Hutchins School, which was located in Sandy Bay in Hobart in the period between 1985 and 1986.

2. Thus, the torts occurred about a little less than 40 years or so ago in the city of Hobart between institutions, and their employees or members, and the plaintiff, who was then a juvenile, living with his family in Hobart.

3. The Court has listed the matter for directions today to consider whether of its own motion it should transfer the proceedings pursuant to s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).

4. The plaintiff neither consents nor opposes such an order for cross‑vesting. The first defendant is in a similar position and neither consents nor opposes the order. The second defendant submits that the Court ought make the order.

5. In my view, it is appropriate that the proceedings be determined by the Supreme Court of Tasmania and it is in the interests of justice for that to occur.

6. The majority of witnesses for the defendants will be located in Tasmania; the records of the defendants will be located in Tasmania; the relevant policies, procedures, practises and reasonable community standards will be determined by what existed at the relevant time in Tasmania.

7. The applicable law is that of Tasmania.

8. The only link which the plaintiff has to the State of New South Wales is that he is presently incarcerated in New South Wales. Accordingly, any psychiatric or other expert examination will need to be carried out by audio visual link taking into account his custodial status. That can be done as easily from Tasmania as it can be from New South Wales.

9. This is a case which, in substance and in effect, is a case more appropriate to be dealt with in the Supreme Court of Tasmania which is the most convenient forum.

10. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

1. Having regard to the fact that it is in the interests of justice that this proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court of Tasmania, I order pursuant to s 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) that the whole of the proceedings be transferred to and dealt with by the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

2. Order that the costs of and associated with the proceedings in this Court be the costs in the cause of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

**********

Decision last updated: 11 October 2024