Ryan v Victoria Racing Club Limited

[2007] VSC 219

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MILDURA

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

No. 990 of 2006

GERALDINE KAY RYAN	Plaintiff
v
VICTORIA RACING CLUB LIMITED	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Hearing on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 June 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ryan v Victoria Racing Club Limited
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 219

---

PRACTICE – Courts (Case Transfer) Act 1991 s.20 – Order by Master for transfer of case to County Court – Personal injury claim – Significant injury to plaintiff – Claim for significant disruption of working capacity – Held that just and convenient that claim remain in Supreme Court.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	No appearance Submissions in writing	Ryan Maloney Anderson
For the Defendant	No appearance Submissions in writing	Hall and Wilcox

HIS HONOUR:

Determination under s.20 of the Courts (Case Transfer) Act 1991

1. This proceeding was issued by writ on 20 December 2006.  The plaintiff claims damages for personal injury arising out of a fall at Flemington Racecourse on 4 November 2004.  On 19 January 2007 the defendant filed a jury notice.  On 14 February 2007, on the return of a summons for directions, I made orders by consent containing directions relating to the disposition of the interlocutory proceedings in the action. 

1. On 15 February 2007 the defendant referred the proceeding to the Master under s.17(1) of the Courts (Case Transfer) Act 1991 (“the Act”) as a proceeding which may be suitable for transfer to the County Court under Part 3 of that Act. The defendant filed submissions dated 5 March 2007 in support of that reference. No submissions were made on behalf of the plaintiff. Based on the materials, the Master formed the conclusion that the proceeding should be transferred to the County Court under Part 3 of the Act. Accordingly the Master made an order to that effect dated 3 May 2007.

1. Pursuant to s.19 of the Act the plaintiff has objected to the transfer of the proceeding to the County Court and has filed a notice of objection. In support the plaintiff has filed submissions opposing the transfer of the proceeding to the County Court. Under s.4 of the Act, the Chief Justice has delegated to me the determination of the plaintiff’s objection. Accordingly the matter has come to me for determination pursuant to s.20 of the Act.

1. I have read the relevant papers in the proceeding.  Having done so I have determined that the proceeding should not be transferred to the County Court.  On the documents contained in the court file the claim by the plaintiff is potentially of sufficient dimension to justify it remaining in the Supreme Court.  The plaintiff’s injuries, as described in the medical reports, are significant.  On the evidence attached to the plaintiff’s submission, the plaintiff has a potential claim that the remainder of her working life has been substantially disrupted, if not terminated.  Further, it is probable that if the proceeding remained in the Supreme Court it may be heard approximately six months earlier than were it remitted to the County Court.

1. Accordingly I determine that it is just and convenient that the proceeding remain in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Pursuant to s.20(2) of the Courts (Case Transfer) Act 1991 I therefore determine that the proceeding should not be transferred to the County Court.