FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY ) No. NG 942 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: OZ FINANCE PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: R.S. MELLOY PTY LIMITED & ANOTHER Respondents SACKVILLE J. SYDNEY FRIDAY, 3 MARCH 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: In this matter, the respondents have moved, by way of notice of motion, that the matter be transferred from the New South Wales District Registry to the Queensland District Registry of this Court. In support of that notice of motion, an affidavit has been filed. That affidavit indicates that the second respondent is resident at Palm Beach in Queensland and is employed by the first respondent, a company, at its office on the Gold Coast in Queensland. The case, essentially, is a valuation case involving a property at the Gold Coast. The respondents indicate that they will be engaging valuers for the purposes of the case who will be either resident in the Gold Coast area or in Brisbane. Mr Armstrong who appears on behalf of the applicant has indicated that there is nothing specific that he can point to that suggests that the matter should remain within the New South Wales District Registry. He indicates that he has had some difficulty in obtaining instructions from the principal of the applicant who is presently in Papua New Guinea. He has also indicated that he would prefer a defence to be filed before the question of a direction pursuant to section 48 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 is dealt with. However, he acknowledges that there is nothing that he can presently point to suggesting that the matter ought to be dealt with in this registry beyond the fact that the loan agreement may have taken place in New South Wales. I consider that the place where the agreement was entered into is a matter of less significance than the factors that are referred to in the affidavit that has been filed on behalf of the respondents in the proceedings. Mr Murray, who appears on behalf of the respondents, stated that he considered it extremely unlikely that there would be any challenge to the fact that valuations were in fact made. Mr Armstrong could not suggest any other matter that might be raised in the defence that would suggest the matter should remain in the New South Wales Registry of the Court. Accordingly, it seems to me that the appropriate course in the circumstances is to direct that the proceedings be continued in the Queensland District Registry in accordance with a timetablethat I have already referred to. Under that timetable, I directed: 1. the respondents to deliver any request for further particulars on or before 10 March 1995; 2. the applicant to furnish any response on or before 17 March 1995; 3. the respondents to file and serve their defences on or before 31 March 1995; 4. the parties to file and serve a list of documents on or before 21 April 1995; 5. the parties to complete inspection of documents on or before 5 May 1995; and 6. the matter to stand over before the Queensland District Registry of the Court on a date to be advised for further directions. I certify that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Sackville. Associate: Dated: 7 March, 1995 Heard: 3 March, 1995 Place: Sydney Decision: 3 March, 1995 Appearances: Mr A Armstrong of Holmes & Bevan, Solicitors, appeared for the applicant. Mr T. Murray of Berne Murray & Tout, Sydney agents for Quinlan Miller & Treston, Solicitors, appeared for the respondents.