Tawil v Western Sydney Local Health District [2012] NSWSC 891

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tawil v Western Sydney Local Health District [2012] NSWSC 891 Hearing dates: 27/07/2012 Decision date: 27 July 2012 Before: Garling J Decision: (1) Order pursuant to section 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) that proceedings numbered 2011/312928 in the Supreme Court of New South Wales be, and hereby are, transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland. (2) Order that the costs of this motion be costs in the cause. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether Supreme Court of Queensland the more appropriate forum - injury occurred in Queensland - unlikely Queensland defendants could be joined - NSW defendant does not oppose - balance of convenience of parties and likely witnesses favour transfer - transfer to Supreme Court of Queensland Legislation Cited: Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711 BHP Billiton LTD v Schultz [2004] HCA 61; (2004) 221 CLR 400 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Kallil Tawil (P) Western Sydney Local Health District (D) Representation: Counsel: Mr King-Scott (P) Mr Fordham (D) Solicitors: Mr King-Scott (P) Mr Fordham (D) File Number(s): 2011/312928

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Factual Background 1On 17 December 2007, the plaintiff Kallil Tawil, whilst visiting Surfers Paradise in Queensland from his usual residence in Sydney, was seriously injured when he fell from a footpath onto oyster-covered rocks. He was initially treated at the Gold Coast Hospital and then by a general practitioner in the Surfers Paradise area. 2Upon his return to Sydney on 22 December 2007, he required further treatment because his injuries were not healing as anticipated. He attended Westmead Hospital, for which the Western Sydney Local Health District is legally liable. Mr Tawil alleges that each of the two hospitals from which he received treatment, as well as the general practitioner in Queensland with whom he consulted, were negligent in and about their treatment of him, as a consequence of which he has suffered significant injury, loss and damage.