Taylor v Woolworths - [2012] VSC 286

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 00831 of 2012

SUZANNE JOY TAYLOR	Plaintiff
v
WOOLWORTHS LIMITED	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Hollingworth J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 June 2012
DATE OF RULING:	27 June 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Taylor v Woolworths
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 286

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Cross-vesting legislation – Application by defendant to transfer proceedings to the Supreme Court of South Australia – Plaintiff alleged that injured in Adelaide store due to defendant’s negligence – South Australian law applicable – Location of witnesses and parties – Plaintiff’s health and financial circumstances – “interests of justice” – Application refused – Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 s5(2)(b)(iii)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Monti	Nevin Lenne & Gross
For the Defendant	Mr N Rattray	Herbert Geer

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Ms Taylor, claims that she was injured on 14 July 2010, when she slipped on the floor of one of the defendant’s “Big W” supermarkets located in a suburb of Adelaide, South Australia. She claims that the injuries occurred due to Woolworths’ negligence. Woolworths denies that it has been negligent, further and in the alternative, claims that Ms Taylor was guilty of contributory negligence.

By an amended summons dated 28 May 2012, Woolworths seeks to have the proceeding transferred to the Supreme Court of South Australia, pursuant to s5(2)(b)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987. That section requires the court to consider whether it is “in the interests of justice” that the proceeding be transferred to the South Australian court.

The principles in relation to such an application were comprehensively considered by the High Court in the decision in BHP Billiton Limited v Schultz[1], and have been applied in many subsequent decisions, including in this court.
[1](2004) 221 CLR 400.

The High Court affirmed that, in determining pursuant to s5(2)(b)(iii) whether it is in the interests of justice to order a transfer, the court must be satisfied as to which court is the “more appropriate forum”, in the sense that it has the most real and substantial connection with the subject matter of the proceeding. This has been described as involving a “nuts and bolts” exercise.[2]
[2]Ibid at [13] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Heydon JJ, quoting from Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711 at 713-4.

There is no exercise of judicial discretion involved in such an application. If it appears to the court that it is in the interests of justice that the proceeding be transferred, then the court “shall transfer” the proceeding.

Each case depends on its own particular facts. Factors which may be relevant include the connection between the alleged conduct and the jurisdiction, the governing law, as well as issues of cost and convenience to the parties, including where the parties and witnesses live and carry on business. There is no presumption that a plaintiff's initial choice of forum carries…

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 Taylor v Woolworths

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Woolworths [2012] VSC 286
Case: [2012] VSC 286
Decision Date: 27 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taylor v Woolworths, the plaintiff, Mr Taylor, sought to sue Woolworths, alleging that he was injured in one of their Adelaide stores due to the defendant’s negligence. The case was initially heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where Woolworths applied for the proceedings to be transferred to the Supreme Court of South Australia. This application was grounded on the provisions of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987, specifically section 5(2)(b)(iii). The plaintiff opposed the transfer, citing various factors including the location of witnesses and parties, as well as his own health and financial circumstances.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting and applying the cross-vesting legislation to determine whether the transfer of the proceedings was warranted in the interests of justice. The court had to weigh the statutory criteria set out in the Act against the plaintiff's arguments concerning his personal situation and the practicalities of the case. The primary consideration was whether the transfer would serve the interests of justice, taking into account all relevant factors.

The court found that while South Australian law was applicable to the case, the factors considered under section 5(2)(b)(iii) did not strongly favour a transfer to the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff's health and financial circumstances, as well as the logistical challenges of moving the case, were significant. However, the court held that these factors, while important, did not outweigh the overall interests of justice in keeping the case in the Federal Circuit Court. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the proceedings would remain in the Federal Circuit Court, and no transfer to the Supreme Court of South Australia would occur. This decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the statutory criteria and the broader context of the case, ensuring that the outcome aligned with the principles of justice.

Orders