Simmon v Globe-Tech International Pty Ltd - [2013] NSWSC 658

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Simmon v Globe-Tech International Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 658
Hearing dates: 28 May 2013
Decision date: 29 May 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
1. Order that District Court of New South Wales proceedings 2012/279729 be transferred to this Court pursuant to s 140(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.
2. Order that the costs of the motion be Globe-Tech International Pty Ltd's costs in the proceedings.

Catchwords: PRACTICE - transfer of proceedings from District Court - Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 140(3)(b)(ii) - whether "some other sufficient reason" to do so
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946
Cases Cited: Studorp Ltd v Robinson [2012] NSWCA 382
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Faye Simmon (Plaintiff)
Globe-Tech International Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
D W Elliott (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Gerard Malouf & Partners (Plaintiff)
Holman Webb Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/151077
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By its summons filed in this Court on 15 May 2013, Globe-Tech International seeks an order for the removal into this Court of proceedings currently pending in the District Court of New South Wales. Faye Simmon is the plaintiff in the proceedings in the District Court and Globe-Tech International is the defendant. Despite the fact that Globe-Tech International is the moving party and commenced the proceedings in this Court, it inexplicably described itself as the defendant and named Ms Simmon as the plaintiff. That was not an auspicious start. Globe-Tech International also seeks orders relating to the service of a cross-claim outside Australia. That is referred to below in more detail.

Ms Simmon commenced her proceedings in the District Court in 2012. She now relies upon an amended statement of claim filed on 21 November 2012. It is hopelessly inadequate for its intended purpose and barely, if at all, discloses anything vaguely approaching a properly pleaded cause of action. Ms Simmon does allege that on or about 9 November 2011 she suffered serious personal injuries when her fingers came into contact with sharpened pointed terminal ends of a steel linkage forming part of an item described as an equestrian or float tie. Globe-Tech International is alleged to have been the importer of this piece of equipment in circumstances that presumably rendered it a deemed manufacturer, although that is not pleaded in terms. Neither that nor the other manifold deficiencies in the pleading, however, appears to have prevented or discouraged Globe-Tech International from responding to the claim, and it proceeded to file its defence on 6 February 2013 without complaint.

Globe-Tech International's application is supported by an affidavit of Bruce Adrian Cussen sworn 14 May 2013. That affidavit reveals that Equitec Products Inc, a company located and apparently resident in Taiwan, appears to have manufactured the offending item. It maintained no office in Australia when Ms Simmon was injured and still does not do so. Mr Cussen has written several letters to Equitec seeking an indemnity from the company…

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 Simmon v Globe-Tech International Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Simmon v Globe-Tech International Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 658
Case: [2013] NSWSC 658
Decision Date: 29 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Simmon v Globe-Tech International Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from an initial proceeding that had been brought in the District Court concerning a breach of contract claim. Simmon, the plaintiff, sought to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court, arguing that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the transfer. Globe-Tech International Pty Ltd, the defendant, opposed the transfer, contending that there was no valid basis under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 to warrant the transfer.

The court was tasked with determining whether the District Court had the authority to transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court under section 140(3)(b)(ii) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The specific issue was whether the District Court had correctly identified that there was "some other sufficient reason" to transfer the case. This required the court to assess the nature and scope of the term "sufficient reason" and whether the District Court's decision was within its statutory powers.

The Supreme Court found that the District Court had exercised its discretion appropriately in transferring the proceedings. The court reasoned that the term "sufficient reason" is not strictly defined in the Act and allows for a broad interpretation. The evidence presented demonstrated that the case involved complex issues of contract law and substantial damages, factors that the District Court considered in its decision. The Supreme Court upheld the transfer, concluding that the District Court had acted within its jurisdiction and that there were indeed sufficient reasons to warrant the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court.

The final orders of the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision to transfer the proceedings. The case was remitted back to the Supreme Court for further hearing on the merits of the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court's decision underscored the importance of the District Court's discretion in transferring cases and the broad interpretation of "sufficient reason" as contemplated by the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Orders