Van Diemen Forestry Consultants Pty Ltd v Limb [1995] FCA 116

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) VG 474 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: VAN DIEMEN FORESTRY CONSULTANTS PTY LTD (ACN 009 577 842) (Applicant) AND: RONALD LIMB and NALDA LIMB (Respondents)

CORAM: RYAN J PLACE: MELBOURNE DATE:

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RYAN J: I consider that I should accede to the respondents' motion that this proceeding be transferred to the Tasmania District Registry of this court. The respondents are both individuals who reside in Tasmania. It appears from the statement of claim that the subject matters of the litigation have a strong connection with Tasmania and no particular connection with Victoria. The only connection of which I have been informed is that the directors and principals of the applicant intend shortly to take up residence in this State. To allow Victoria to remain the proper place of the litigation would impose a burden on the respondents by requiring them to act through Melbourne agents of their Hobart solicitors and to have an address for service in Melbourne. I do not consider that the transfer of the proceedings to the Hobart registry will cause an undue burden to the applicant, which has retained a Melbourne solicitor and counsel. Documents can be lodged in the Victoria District Registry for transmission to Hobart and any directions hearing can, if appropriate, be conducted by telephone or video link between the two cities. If necessary, part of the trial of the action can occur in Victoria or elsewhere in Australia if the court is persuaded that it would be more convenient or economical for a significant body of witnesses or for the practitioners retained in the matter at the time of the trial for that to occur. Another factor which has led me to take the course which I have is that it is not manifest on the face of the statement of claim that the causes of action pleaded are within the jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, even if they be within jurisdiction, a strong argument could be mounted for the action to be transferred to the Supreme Court of Tasmania under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987. For these reasons, as I have indicated, I propose to add the following orders to the minutes of consent orders which have been submitted by counsel: "(6) that the proceeding herein be transferred to the Tasmania District Registry of the court; and (7) that the costs of both parties of this day and of the respondents' motion on notice dated 28 February 1995 be reserved."