Studorp Ltd v Robinson

Studorp Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a Supreme Court declaration that the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales was not a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of Mr Robinson's asbestos-related injury claim. Mr Robinson sought to cross-appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Dust Diseases Tribunal was not a clearly inappropriate forum, and whether the service of the Statement of Claim in New Zealand was authorised by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The court also considered the relevance of the inability to appeal findings of fact from the Dust Diseases Tribunal when the content of foreign law, specifically New Zealand law, was in issue.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the primary judge had taken an irrelevant consideration into account. The court highlighted the importance of appeal rights when the content of foreign law is a significant factor in determining the governing law of a dispute. The uncertainty surrounding the content of New Zealand law on issues likely to arise at trial, and the fact that determining such content is a question of fact, weighed heavily in the court's assessment of the appropriateness of the forum. Furthermore, the court found that the service of the Statement of Claim in New Zealand was not authorised by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted Studorp Ltd leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the Supreme Court's declaration. Mr Robinson's cross-appeal was dismissed, and his Notice of Contention was also dismissed. Mr Robinson was ordered to pay 50 percent of Studorp Ltd's costs.