Pilbara Ports Authority v Ashton - [2019] NSWSC 1488

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pilbara Ports Authority v Ashton [2019] NSWSC 1488
Hearing dates: 11 September 2019
Date of orders: 30 October 2019
Decision date: 30 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) The Amended Summons is dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Cross-vesting – whether proceedings should be transferred from NSW District Court to NSW Supreme Court to then be transferred to WA Supreme Court – Court not persuaded it is in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings to WA – amended summons dismissed
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 121
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 5, 8
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA)
Cases Cited: Bechtel Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd v Muhannad Alkhattab [2016] NSWSC 1749
BHP Billiton Limited v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400; [2004] HCA 61
James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry (2000) 50 NSWLR 357; [2000] NSWCA 353
Michael Anthony Luxury Cars Pty Ltd v Connexwire Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1084
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Pilbara Ports Authority (Plaintiff)
Benjamin Ashton (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Chiu (Plaintiff)
J Wilson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Plaintiff)
Russell McLelland Brown Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/175348
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

By amended summons filed on 5 June 2019 the plaintiff, Pilbara Ports Authority, seeks orders pursuant to s 8(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) (“the Act”), to transfer proceedings from the District Court of New South Wales (“District Court”) to this Court and then pursuant to ss 5(2)(b)(ii)(C) and 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, to transfer the proceedings from this Court to the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The principal proceedings were commenced by statement of claim in the District Court, Civil Division, Wollongong registry on 23 April 2019.
The proceedings arise from an accident that occurred on 25 April 2016, Mr Ashton claims that he tripped on a metal grate or mat outside the lunchroom at the administrative buildings of the Utah Point bulk load out facility in Port Hedland, Western Australia (“WA”). Mr Ashton says as a result of the accident he injured his right ankle, calf, hip, knee and back and also suffered psychological injury. He sued Pilbara Ports for negligence in failing to take proper precautions to prevent the accident. He also makes an alternative case for breach of statutory duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA).
The proceedings are still at an early stage and no defence has yet been filed awaiting determination of the present application. No orders have yet been made for service of evidence, although it seems that at least one medico-legal expert report has been served by Mr Ashton’s Wollongong-based solicitors. That report was authored by a WA based occupational physician, Dr Neil Owens dated 22 May 2017.
Despite a reasonably detailed Statement of Particulars having been filed on 23 April 2019, I…

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 Pilbara Ports Authority v Ashton 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: [2019] NSWSC 1488
Decision Date: 30 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pilbara Ports Authority, a statutory authority established under the laws of Western Australia, initiated legal proceedings against Ashton in the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the validity of a statutory demand issued by the Pilbara Ports Authority against Ashton, which was grounded in a debt allegedly owed by Ashton to the Authority. Pilbara Ports Authority sought to transfer the proceedings from the NSW District Court to the NSW Supreme Court, and then to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, citing the cross-vesting jurisdiction provisions under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The court had to determine whether it was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings to Western Australia, considering the potential implications for the parties and the administration of justice.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of cross-vesting provisions within the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to examine whether the circumstances warranted the transfer of the proceedings from the NSW District Court to the NSW Supreme Court, and subsequently to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Factors considered included the convenience of the parties, the efficiency of the judicial process, and whether a transfer would serve the interests of justice. The court also needed to evaluate whether any prejudice to the defendant would result from such a transfer and if there were any overriding considerations that would make the transfer unjust.

The court deliberated on the merits of transferring the proceedings, weighing the arguments presented by both parties. Ultimately, the court was not persuaded that transferring the proceedings to Western Australia would be in the interests of justice. The court emphasised the importance of considering the convenience of the parties and the potential for undue prejudice to the defendant, Ashton. Additionally, the court noted that the primary dispute was rooted in a statutory demand, which could be addressed effectively in the NSW District Court without necessitating a transfer. Consequently, the amended summons for the transfer of proceedings was dismissed.

Orders