1.   The application for the transfer of the proceedings be dismissed;
2 .    The second, third and fifth respondents pay the applicants' costs of this application;
3.    Orders in accordance with the Short Minute of Orders be made;
4.   Both proceedings be stood over for further direction on 7 May 1993.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 3010 of 1993

)

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN: MICHELLE LOUISE WISE

First Applicant

BARRY DOUGLAS WISE

Second Applicant

AND: COORPAROO CONSTRUCTIONS PTY

LTD (A.C.N. 009 924 999)

First Respondent

ELINA MACKEY

Second Respondent

MERWN GEORGE REID

Third Respondent

IAN EDWIN YE0

Fourth Respondent

PADRAIC ALEXANDER MACKEY

Fifth Respondent

TALL TIMBERS WOODWARE PTY LTD

(A.C.N. 000 613 829)

Sixth Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 3012 of 1993

1

GENERAt DIVISION 1

BETWEEN : MICHELLE LOUISE WISE

First Applicant

BARRY DOUGLAS WISE

Second Applicant

AND : TALL TIMBERS WOODWARE PTY LTD
(A.C.N. 000 613 829)

First Respondent

ELINA MACKEY

Second Respondent

MERVYN GEORGE REID

Third Respondent

COORPAROO CONSTRUCTIONS PTY

LTD (A.C.N. 009 924 999)

Fourth Respondent

PADRAIC ALEXANDER MACKEY

Fifth Respondent

CORAM: FOSTER J
DATE : 26 FEBRUARY, 1993
PLACE : SYDNEY

REASONS FOR J U m N T
(Extempore)

HIS HONOUR: This is an application pursuant to s 44 of the Cor~orations (New South Wales) Act 1990 for an order for the transfer of two proceedings from this Court to the Queensland Supreme Court.

The proceedings in question relate, first, to the company Coorparoo Constructions Pty Limited. Those are proceedings G3010 of 1993. The other proceedings relate to the company Tall Timbers Woodware Pty Limited, proceedings G3012 of 1993.

The proceedings in relation to Coorparoo
Constructions Pty Limited appear to have been commenced in the

New South Wales District Registry of this Court by application filed on 19 January of this year. The other proceedings were commenced by application filed on…

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.

Continue reading R v Whitnall

Details

AGLC: R v Whitnall [1993] FCA 271
Case: [1993] FCA 271
Decision Date: 26 Feb 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an application by the respondents in two proceedings to transfer those proceedings from the Federal Court of Australia to the Queensland Supreme Court. The applicants in the original proceedings, Michelle Louise Wise and Barry Douglas Wise, opposed the transfer. The court was required to decide whether the interests of justice required the proceedings to be transferred to the Queensland Supreme Court.

The court considered the arguments put forward by both parties, including considerations of geographical convenience and the nature of the proceedings already commenced in the Queensland Supreme Court. The court held that the applicants' opposition to the transfer and the fact that the proceedings in the Federal Court had already commenced meant that it was not appropriate to transfer the proceedings to the Queensland Supreme Court. The court also noted that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter in whole or in part in Sydney or Brisbane, or partly in each area.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for the transfer of the proceedings. The respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the application. The proceedings in the Federal Court were stood over for further directions.

This decision highlights the importance of considering the interests of justice when deciding whether to transfer proceedings from one court to another, and the need to balance considerations of geographical convenience with the applicants' choice of forum.

Orders