PORT LINE LTD v LACEY [1996] NSWCA 430

PORT LINE LTD v LACEY

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY, MEAGHER and BEAZLEY JJA 26 July 1996

[1996] NSWCA 430

Jurisdiction of DDT — Application for leave to appeal

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST DECISION BY DUST DISEASES TRIBUNAL DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR DECLARATIONS THAT DUST DISEASES TRIBUNAL HAD NO JURISDICTION AND/OR WAS NOT FORUM CONVENIENS - urgent hearing of primary claim desirable - Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 at 565 discussed - approach to be taken in Court of Appeal - no error in trial judge's approach.

ORDERS

Application dismissed with costs.

Priestley JA This is an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision by his Honour Judge Maguire in the Dust Diseases Tribunal, delivered on the 22nd of this month, by which he dismissed an application by the defendant in proceedings brought under the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act.

The proceedings had been commenced by statement of claim, and that statement of claim had been served pursuant to the Rules, outside the jurisdiction. The relevant rule was R1A of Pt10 of the Supreme Court Rules, which permitted originating process to be served outside Australia in a number of cases, two of which were relied upon by the plaintiff in the proceedings.

The defendant sought to have the statement of claim set aside, or alternatively or additionally a declaration that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the defendant, and again alternatively or additionally, a declaration that New South Wales was an inappropriate forum for the hearing of the case.

It has been said by the High Court of cases of this kind that:

"Although there will be cases where the primary Judge may conclude he should give detailed reasons explaining why the local forum is or is not a clearly inappropriate one, ordinarily it will be unnecessary for the primary Judge to do more than briefly indicate that, having examined the material in evidence and having taken account of the competing written and oral submissions, he or she is of the view that the proceedings should or should not be stayed on forum non conveniens, that is clearly an inappropriate forum, grounds." (Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 at 565 per Mason CJ, Deane J, Dawson J and Gaudron J.)