JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LTD v BARRY & ANOR; SELTSAM PTY LTD V BARRY & ANOR [2000] NSWCA 353

Reported Decision : [2000] 50 NSWLR 357 [2000] NSWCCR 150

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LTD v BARRY & ANOR; SELTSAM PTY LTD V BARRY & ANOR [2000] NSWCA 353 revised - 2/05/2001 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40600/00; 40599/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 24, 25 August 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 December 2000

PARTIES : JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LTD v Thomas Joseph BARRY & Anor; SELTSAM PTY LTD v Thomas Joseph BARRY & Anor JUDGMENT OF : Spigelman CJ at 1; Mason P at 22; Priestley JA at 119

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Proceedings removed from Common Law Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :

FM Douglas QC/D Graham (Hardie) COUNSEL : J Fernon (Seltsam) S Gageler (Barry) M Sexton QC / N Abadee/(A.G. Intervener) Allen Allen & Hemsley (Hardie) SOLICITORS : Toomey Pegg Drevikovsky (Seltsam) Slater & Gordon (Barry) I V Knight, State Crown Solicitor (Intervener) CATCHWORDS : Transfer of proceedings - plaintiff a resident of Queensland and pleads causes of action that include torts that occurred in Queensland - applications for transfer of proceeding under Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (the Cross-vesting Act) from Dust Diseases Tribunal to Supreme Court of Queensland - choice of law - sections 12A, 25(3), 25A and s25B Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (the DDT Act) - plaintiff seeks to rely upon ss 25(3) and 25B DDT Act to take advantage of evidence tendered and findings made in earlier matter - operation of ss8(1)(b)(ii) and 5(2)(b)(iii) Cross-vesting Act - Supreme Court has jurisdiction to remove and transfer to Queensland a proceeding pending in Tribunal under Cross-vesting Act - ss10 and 11 DDT Act - Tribunal itself lacks jurisdiction to transfer matter - cross-vesting scheme operates independently of High Court's forum non conveniens doctrine - Constitution s118 - "interests of justice" in s5(2)(b)(iii) Cross-vesting Act - matters to be taken into account in deciding "more appropriate" forum - plaintiff's choice of Tribunal and reasons for it are relevant considerations in determining forum - whether onus should rest on applicant for transfer of proceedings - proceeding in Tribunal unlikely to exceed four hearing days compared to weeks in proposed transferee court - unique procedural powers of the Tribunal relevant and significant in task of determining more appropriate forum - "interests of justice" favouring refusal of transfer - applications dismissed with costs. (D) DECISION : Applications dismissed.