2. the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – RESTRAINT OF PROCEEDINGS – OF LOCAL PROCEEDINGS: CLEARLY INAPPROPRIATE FORUM – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence in New Zealand – where the defendant filed an application to stay the proceeding pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 1999 (Qld), r 16 – where the plaintiff is a resident of and has previously brought a similar proceeding in New South Wales – where the parties agree that the lex causae is the law of New Zealand – where the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) will affect the procedure of the trial – whether this Court is a “clearly inappropriate forum” – whether a stay of proceeding should be allowed
Evidence Act1977 (Qld), s 68 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW), s 4
Hook, “New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Scheme and Man-Made Disease”, [2008] Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 15 Miller, “Trends in Personal Injury Litigation: the 1990s”, [2003] Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 407 Mortenson, “A Trans-Tasman Judicial Area: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in the Single Economic Market”, (2010) 16 Canterbury Law Review 61 Todd S, “Forty Years of Accident Compensation in New Zealand”, Thomas M Cooley Law Review, Volume 28:2, 189
[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 Robinson v Studorp Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Robinson v Studorp Ltd [2013] QSC 238
Case
[2013] QSC 238
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Robinson commenced proceedings against Studorp Ltd seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in New Zealand, allegedly due to the defendant's negligence. Studorp Ltd filed an application to stay the proceeding, asserting that the Queensland Court of Appeal is a "clearly inappropriate forum" and that the proceedings should be stayed pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 1999 (Qld), r 16. The court had to determine whether the application should be granted and whether the Queensland court was indeed a "clearly inappropriate forum" under the relevant provisions.
The court noted that the plaintiff had previously brought a similar proceeding in New South Wales and was a resident of that state. The parties agreed that the law of New Zealand governed the dispute, and the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) would affect the trial's procedure. The court considered the criteria for determining whether a court is a "clearly inappropriate forum" and examined whether the proceedings were vexatious or oppressive or if the New Zealand court was available and adequate. The court found that the plaintiff had a real prospect of success on the merits, and there was no evidence to suggest that the proceeding was vexatious or oppressive. The court concluded that the New Zealand court was not available and adequate because the plaintiff had already brought a similar proceeding in New South Wales.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application to be assessed. The court held that the Queensland court was not a "clearly inappropriate forum" and that the proceeding should not be stayed. The court also noted that the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) would govern the trial's procedure and that the law of New Zealand would apply to the substantive issues in the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
The order of the court is:
1. the application is dismissed; and
2. the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application to be assessed.