Rowe v Grünenthal

The case of Rowe v Grünenthal involved a group proceeding where the plaintiffs, who were Australian citizens, sought to sue Grünenthal, a German pharmaceutical company, for damages related to the drug thalidomide. The dispute centred on the service of legal documents outside of Australia and the jurisdiction of the court. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs argued that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case based on the service out of Australia and the fact that the tort was committed in Germany where the plaintiffs suffered damage. They sought an indorsement for service out of Australia and argued that the place of commission of the tort and the place where the damage was suffered were both relevant to the court's jurisdiction.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case based on the service out of Australia, the appropriate forum for the case, and whether the proceeding should be stayed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, including rules 2.04, 7.01, 7.02, 7.05, 8.08 and 8.09. The court also had to consider the principles of private international law, including the concept of jurisdiction and the choice of forum.

The court found that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction to hear the case based on the service out of Australia. However, the court considered whether it was an appropriate forum to hear the case. The court found that the appropriate forum for the case was Germany, where the tort was committed and where the company was based. The court also found that the proceeding should be stayed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court held that it was appropriate to stay the proceeding because the plaintiffs had a real and substantial choice of forum and the balance of convenience favoured staying the proceeding. The court also found that the plaintiffs' application to set aside service was not successful.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of the defendant and stayed the proceeding. The court held that the appropriate forum for the case was Germany and that the proceeding should be stayed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court also found that the plaintiffs' application to set aside service was not successful. The final orders of the court included staying the proceeding and dismissing the application to set aside service.