Ryan v Optus Networks Pty Limited - [2023] NSWSC 702

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ryan v Optus Networks Pty Limited [2023] NSWSC 702
Hearing dates: 05 June 2023
Date of orders: 05 June 2023
Decision date: 23 June 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) Summons is dismissed.
(2) The costs of this application will be costs in the cause.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – transfers to and from other courts – application to transfer from Local Court to Supreme Court – jurisdictional limit – proceedings ready for hearing – serious issues with calculation of damage relevant to asserted liability – not in the interest of justice to transfer

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 140

Cases Cited:
Ryan v Bunnings Group Ltd [2020] ACTSC 353

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Mark Ryan (Plaintiff)
Optus Networks Pty Limited (First Defendant)
Telstra Limited (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
In person (Plaintiff)
S Onitiri (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Gadens Lawyers (First Defendant)
McCullough Robertson Lawyers (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/205831

ex tempore JUDGMENT (revised)

HIS HONOUR: Before the Court is an application presumably, pursuant to the terms of s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), for the Court to make an order transferring the proceedings that are currently in the General Division of the Local Court of New South Wales at Queanbeyan to this Court, being the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The Court, of course, is not bound by the remedies sought in any particular proceedings. The Court could, on the application, refer the matter from the Local Court to the District Court, assuming it was so minded. The only restriction on the jurisdiction of the Court to transfer the proceedings to a higher court under s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act is the Court is unable to do so unless it is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for hearing the proceedings in the higher court.
The proceedings in the Local Court were commenced by the plaintiff and it is the plaintiff who seeks the transfer. There have been a number of iterations of the Statement of Claim. I will deal with the last of them only, and where there is a reference in this judgment to the Statement of Claim it is a reference to the last iteration of the Statement of Claim.
The plaintiff is Mark Ryan. He is self-represented before the Court. He conducted, it seems on the material currently before the Court, one business and either a second business or was in other employment. He operated nightclub interests and he also worked as a chiropractor.
The current claim refers to his business as a chiropractor which, under the Statement of Claim, he suggests is a business he was intending to take up full-time when or if his nightclub interests ceased. In any event, the plaintiff alleges that in 2014 and 2015 he suffered loss and damage as a result of interruption to the businesses that he operated and in particular, in this instance, the chiropractor…

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 Ryan v Optus Networks Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Optus Networks Pty Limited [2023] NSWSC 702
Case: [2023] NSWSC 702
Decision Date: 23 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ryan, brought an application before the Supreme Court to transfer proceedings from the Local Court, where a claim for damages was initially filed, to the Supreme Court. The respondent, Optus Networks Pty Limited, opposed the transfer, arguing that it was not appropriate due to the jurisdictional limit and the readiness of the case for hearing. The central issue before the court was whether the application to transfer the proceedings should be granted, given the potential for significant damages and the presence of serious issues regarding the calculation of those damages.

The court found that the transfer of proceedings was not in the interest of justice. It noted that the case involved a complex calculation of damages which was central to the asserted liability. The court held that the matter was ready for hearing in the Local Court and that the serious issues with the calculation of damages would be better addressed in that forum. The court concluded that transferring the case to the Supreme Court at this stage would not be in the interest of justice, particularly given the jurisdictional limits of the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the application to transfer the proceedings was dismissed. The court emphasised that the Local Court was better equipped to handle the issues related to the calculation of damages, and that it was not appropriate to transfer the case at this stage. The case remained in the Local Court for further proceedings.

Orders