Thomas Peter Koltai v World Dot Net Holdings Pty Limited & 1 Ors [1999] NSWSC 830

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Thomas Peter Koltai v World Dot Net Holdings Pty Limited & 1 Ors [1999] NSWSC 830 revised - 31/08/99 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : 2502/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 17/08/99 JUDGMENT DATE : 17 August 1999

Thomas Peter Koltai (Plaintiff) PARTIES : World Dot Net Holdings Pty Limited ACN 064 949 926 (First Defendant) Raymond Roger Gatt (Second Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Santow J

COUNSEL : R Alkadamani (Plaintiff) A P Coleman (Defendants) SOLICITORS : Conway Leather Shaw (Plaintiff) Henry Davis York (Defendants) CATCHWORDS : CROSS-VESTING — Relevant factors — No need for disproportionate calling of witnesses — Cost orders reflecting possibility that facts may emerge contrary to basis on which cross-vesting order made. CASES CITED : Divinyls Holdings Pty Ltd v Billboard Pty Ltd (Young J, 17 October 1995, unreported) DECISION : Cross-vesting granted.

REVISED — 17 August, 1999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES IN EQUITY

SANTOW J

No. 2502/99 THOMAS PETER KOLTAI Plaintiff WORLD DOT NET HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED ACN 064 949 926 First Defendant RAYMOND ROGER GATT Second Defendant

JUDGMENT — ex tempore 17 August 1999

1 This is an application by the Defendant/Applicant in a commercial dispute in relation to a company to cross-vest the proceedings from this Court to the Supreme Court of South Australia. The factors which Young J conveniently lists after citing the relevant authorities, doing so in Divinyls Holdings Pty Ltd v Billboard Pty Ltd (Young J, 17 October 1995, unreported) are these: "Often in cross-vesting applications there are some particular factors that make it clear that one Australian forum is to be preferred rather than another. Often there will be proceedings in two different fora and there would be duplication of work and one finds that one proceedings was more advanced than the other. There are no such matters in the instant case, nor would it appear that there are any real differences in the law of New South Wales and the law of Western Australia. The only factors that need to be balanced would appear to be these: (a) The number of witnesses on each side of the proceedings; (b) the place where the various parties live and carry on their business; (c) The New South Wales jurisdiction clause; and (d) the matter as to whether the factual events make it more convenient to hear the matter in Western Australia …"