Studorp Limited v Robinson

Case [2014] QCA 174

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Studorp Limited v Robinson [2014] QCA 174

PARTIES:

STUDORP LIMITED
(appellant)
v
LANCE JOHN ROBINSON
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9329 of 2013
SC No 11966 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 March 2014

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Applegarth J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Appeal dismissed.1.      

Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.2.      

CATCHWORDS:

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – RESTRAINT OF PROCEEDINGS – OF LOCAL PROCEEDINGS: CLEARLY INAPPROPRIATE FORUM – GENERALLY – where the respondent had contact with the appellant’s asbestos products as an child in New Zealand – where the respondent was later diagnosed with asbestos related pleural disease – where the respondent claimed damages for personal injuries – where the respondent was a resident of and had previously brought similar proceedings in New South Wales – where the appellant applied for a stay of the proceedings on the basis that Queensland was a “clearly inappropriate forum” – where the application was dismissed – whether Queensland was a “clearly inappropriate forum”

Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 16, r 144

Couch v Attorney-General [2008] 3 NZLR 725; [2008] NZSC 45, cited
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; [1932] All ER 1; [1932] UKHL 100, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Konamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269; [2001] EWHC Ch 470, cited
North Shore City Council v Attorney-General [2012] 3 NZLR 341; [2012] NZSC 49, cited
Puttick v Tenon Ltd (2008) 238 CLR 265; [2008] HCA 54, cited
Ramsay v Aberfoyle Manufacturing Company (Australia) Pty Ltd (1935) 54 CLR 230; [1935] HCA 75, cited
Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491; [2002] HCA 10, cited
Studorp Limited v Robinson [2012] NSWSC 148, related
Studorp Limited v Robinson [2012] NSWCA 382, related
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562; [2001] HCA 59, cited
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538; [1990] HCA 55, cited

COUNSEL:

G Watson SC, with J Sheller, for the appellant
P Semmler QC, with S Tzouganatos, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

DLA Piper for the appellant
Turner Freeman for the respondent

  1. GOTTERSON JA:  On 12 December 2012, the respondent, Lance John Robinson, commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland against the appellant, Studorp Limited (“Studorp”), for damages in negligence for personal injury, by filing a claim and statement of claim.[1]  Factual circumstances giving rise to actionable negligence are pleaded as having occurred in New Zealand where Mr Robinson resided as a young man.  His pleaded case is that as…

Continue reading Studorp Limited v Robinson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Studorp Limited v Robinson [2014] QCA 174
Case
[2014] QCA 174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Studorp Limited took legal action against Robinson, a resident of New South Wales, who had previously brought similar proceedings in that state, alleging that he had suffered personal injury from the appellant's asbestos products as a child in New Zealand. The appellant applied for a stay of the proceedings in Queensland, claiming that it was a "clearly inappropriate forum" to hear the case. The application was dismissed, and the appellant appealed to the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Queensland was a "clearly inappropriate forum" for the proceedings. The court considered the factors relevant to determining whether a forum was appropriate, including the location of the parties, the place of the relevant events, and the law applicable to the case. The court also considered whether the proceedings in New South Wales had been finalised or whether there were any other proceedings pending in other jurisdictions.

The court held that Queensland was not a "clearly inappropriate forum" for the proceedings. The court found that the respondent had a strong connection to New South Wales, where he was a resident and had previously brought similar proceedings. The court also found that the respondent had a significant connection to Queensland, as the appellant's products were sold and used in that state. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the proceedings in New South Wales had been stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings in Queensland. The court further held that the respondent's claims were not substantially the same as those in the New South Wales proceedings, as the respondent had not previously claimed damages for his asbestos-related pleural disease.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the standard basis. The court found that the proceedings in Queensland were not an abuse of process and that the respondent had a real and substantial issue to determine. The court held that the respondent was entitled to have his claims heard in Queensland, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent. The court also found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the proceedings in Queensland would be an oppressive or vexatious abuse of the court's process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.1.

Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.2.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.