Rolapak Australia P/L York, G.J. Summary

327 \qc1\3

JUDGMENT NO. ...11111.1 8188881 .aasaaan a.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No VG 111 of 1992
GENERAL DIVISION
B E T W E E N :

ROLAPAK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Applicant

A N D :

GREGORY JMIES YORK

Respondent

COURT : NORTHROP J

PLACE : MELBOURNE
W: 10 MAY 1993

24 MAY 1993

FEDERAL ~ u U R T 'JP

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AUSTEACIP

.

The matter before the Court is a motion,

is dated 5 April 1993, in which the respondent is seeking an
order that the venue of the proceedings be transferred from
the Victorian Distrlct Registry to the New South Wales
District Registry, and other orders and directions. The
principles to be applied in motions of this kind have been set

principles is set out at 442:

out authoritatively and clearly in the case of National Mutual
Holdinqs Ptv Limited v Sentrv Coruoration (1988) 83 ALR 434,
and in particular at 441 to 442. The source of the power to
make the order is quite clear. It is also clear that there is
no real onus one way or the other on a motion of this kind.
The matter is discussed at length under the heading "The

proper test to apply" on page 441. The essence of the

"The balance of convenience is important, but its weight
must vary from case to case. Ultimately the test is:
where can the case be conducted or continued most
suitably, bearing in mind the interests of all the
parties, the ends of justice in the determination of the
issues between them, and the most efficient
administration of the court? It cannot and should not,
in our opinion, be defined more closely or precisely."
This action was commenced in Victoria on 7 April 1992.

There have been eight directions hearings and a mediation in
Victoria. There have been a number of opposed motions dealing
with the substantive issues arising between the parties.
There has been a change of solicitors for the respondent

occurring in about March of this year. The new solicitors are

New South Wales solicitors. Prior to then, the solicitors for

the respondent were Melbourne solicitors and Melbourne counsel had appeared. The matter is getting very close to trial. The pleadings have closed. Discovery and inspection have almost

been concluded. There may be some small matters still in issue in relation to the pleadings but these are of minor

importance only. I t is at this late stage that the motion is

brought seeking a change in venue. I t appears that the main

respondents who conduct a small business at Gosford, north of grounds to support the motion depend upon the position of the

Sydney; a husband and wife team. A number of witnesses are to be called from New South Wales, and one from Victoria as

far as the respondent is concerned. I t appears that the

essential ground in support of the motion is the convenience to the respondents and their witnesses as far as the hearing is concerned. As opposed to that, the applicant essentially is a Victorian-based firm. It is a company, but essentially

is a two-family partnership. It carries on business in
Victoria, but does distribute goods throughout Australia. The
issue of liability and validity of the patent are to be
determined as separate issues before the question of damages
and the applicant will be calling witnesses from Victoria.
So, essentially, it comes down to this question of the
inconvenience of the parties and the witnesses to be called.
That of itself is not finally determinative of the issues on
the change of venue.

Applying the general test enunciated in the National

Mutual case at page 442, the impression I have is that overall

this is a case which can be properly heard in Victoria and I

.

see no sufficient reason to change the venue to New South

Wales. This is a case where no matter where the matter is

heard there is going to be a certain degree of inconvenience

to some of the parties. I take into account what is contained

in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, but

despite that in my opinion this is not a case where the Court

should order that the venue be changed to Sydney.

The order sought in the motion is refused with costs.

Other directions were given.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable

Mr Justice R.M. Northrop.

ssociate:

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Rolpak Australia P/L v York, G.J. was presented before Justice Northrop in the Victoria District Registry. Rolpak Australia P/L, the applicant, filed a motion dated 5 April 1993, seeking an order to transfer the venue of the proceedings from the Victorian District Registry to the New South Wales District Registry, along with other orders and directions. The respondent, Gregory Jmies York, sought the change of venue on the basis of convenience for the parties and their witnesses. The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the case could be suitably heard in Victoria, where it had been ongoing since its commencement on 7 April 1992.

The court considered the principles for deciding such motions as outlined in National Mutual Holdings Pty Limited v Sentry Corporation (1988) 83 ALR 434, particularly the balance of convenience test. The court weighed the interests of all parties, the ends of justice, and the efficient administration of the court. Given that the case had progressed significantly in Victoria, with eight directions hearings and a mediation already conducted, and considering the minor nature of the remaining pleadings issues, the court found no sufficient reason to change the venue to New South Wales. The motion was refused, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The court's reasoning focused on the convenience of the parties and witnesses, but ultimately determined that the case could be conducted most suitably in Victoria. The judge considered the inconvenience faced by the parties and witnesses regardless of the venue but concluded that the case should remain in Victoria. The court emphasized the importance of the balance of convenience test and its application in the specific context of the case, leading to the refusal of the motion for a change of venue.

The final order certified by the court confirmed the refusal of the motion for a change of venue with costs awarded to the applicant. Further directions were given to continue with the proceedings as scheduled in Victoria. The decision underscores the application of established principles in determining venue changes in civil litigation, focusing on the overall interests of justice and the efficient administration of court resources.

Rolapak Australia P/L York, G.J.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	No VG 111 of 1992
GENERAL DIVISION
B E T W E E N :