Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Batt - [2014] NSWSC 1211

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd as custodian for the Balmain Aqua Construction Debt Pool and the Balmain AQUA Mezzanine Debt Pool v Keith Laurence Batt [2014] NSWSC 1211
Hearing dates: 29 August 2014
Decision date: 02 September 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Robb J
Decision:
Order that the defendant's notice of motion filed on 30 May 2014 be dismissed.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - jurisdiction of the courts - application to transfer proceedings to Supreme Court of Queensland - whether it is in the interests of justice - what is the most appropriate forum
Legislation Cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) ss 12GD, 12GF, 12GM
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) s 5(2)(b)(iii)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 80, 82, 87
Cases Cited: Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711
BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz [2004] HCA 61; (2004) 21 CLR 400
James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry (2000) 50 NSWLR 357
Valceski v Valceski [2007] NSWSC 440
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd as custodian for the Balmain Aqua Construction Debt Pool and the Balmain AQUA Mezzanine Debt Pool (plaintiff)
Keith Laurence Batt (defendant)
Representation: Counsel: I C Giles (plaintiff)
C N Bova/N Lim (defendant)
Solicitors: K & L Gates (plaintiff)
Dowd and Company (defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/110434

Judgment

By notice of motion filed on 30 May 2014 the defendant, Mr Keith Laurence Batt, seeks an order that these proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland, Brisbane Registry.

The defendant relies upon s 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW), which provides:

(2) Where:

(b) it appears to the [Supreme Court] that:

...

(iii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court of another State or of a Territory, the [Supreme Court] shall transfer the relevant proceeding to that other Supreme Court.

The question is whether it is in the interests of justice that these proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The plaintiff, Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd sues in the capacity as custodian for the Balmain Aqua Construction Debt Pool and the Balmain AQUA Mezzanine Debt Pool. It commenced these proceedings by statement of claim filed on 11 April 2014. It claims judgment against the defendant for $7,132,982.07, plus interest and costs. The basis of the claim as pleaded is that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff under a guarantee entered into on 21 December 2007 in respect of the debts owed by a company called Queensland Property Partners Pty Ltd (QPP), in its own right and as trustee for the Keith Batt Family Trust.

On 21 May 2014 the defendant's solicitors foreshadowed in a letter to the plaintiff's solicitors that the defendant would make the present application.

On 30 May 2014 the defendant filed a defence and cross claim. The plaintiff is the only cross defendant.

The evidence establishes that QPP was registered…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Batt and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NSWSC 1211
Decision Date: 02 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Batt involved a dispute over the transfer of proceedings from the Federal Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd, sought to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court, citing the complexity and financial implications of the case as reasons for the transfer. The defendant, Batt, opposed the transfer, arguing that the Federal Circuit Court was the appropriate forum for the proceedings. The matter was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings from the Federal Circuit Court to the Supreme Court. The court had to consider various factors in making this determination, including the complexity of the case, the financial implications, and the availability of appropriate remedies in each court. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the Federal Circuit Court or the Supreme Court was the most appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute.

In deciding the matter, the court considered the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. The court held that the transfer of proceedings to the Supreme Court was in the interests of justice, given the complexity of the case and the significant financial implications involved. The court also found that the Supreme Court was the most appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute, as it had the necessary jurisdiction and expertise to handle the case effectively. As a result, the court granted the plaintiff's application for the transfer of proceedings.

The final orders of the court were that the proceedings be transferred from the Federal Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. This decision ensured that the case was heard in the most appropriate forum, taking into account the interests of justice and the needs of the parties involved.

Orders