Studorp Ltd v Robinson Robinson v Studorp Ltd [2012] NSWCA 382

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Studorp Ltd v Robinson Robinson v Studorp Ltd [2012] NSWCA 382 Hearing dates: 22 June 20122 November 2012 Decision date: 29 November 2012 Before: ALLSOP P at [1] MEAGHER JA at [22] HOEBEN JA at [32] Decision: (1) With respect to the application for leave to appeal by Studorp, grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal. (2) The declaration made by the Supreme Court on 1 March 2012 that the DDT is not a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of Mr Robinson's claim be set aside. (3) With respect to the application for leave to cross-appeal by Mr Robinson, grant leave to cross-appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal. (4) Mr Robinson's Notice of Contention dismissed. (5) Mr Robinson pay 50 percent of Studorp's costs of the proceedings, both in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: PRACTICE - nature of appeal against finding that a forum was not clearly inappropriate - not necessary to decide - primary judge took into account irrelevant consideration - PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - stay of proceedings - clearly inappropriate forum test - negligence - asbestos related injury - governing law, the law of New Zealand - uncertainty as to content of law of New Zealand on issues likely to arise at trial - determination of content of New Zealand law a question of fact - relevance and effect of no appeal on question of fact from the Dust Diseases Tribunal of NSW - importance of appeal rights where content of foreign law in issue - other issues relevant to whether Dust Diseases Tribunal of NSW is a clearly inappropriate forum - whether making of declaration appropriate - PRACTICE - service of Statement of Claim issued out of Dust Diseases Tribunal of NSW in New Zealand - not authorised by Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - stay of proceedings. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW) ss10, 11, 25, 32 Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulations 2007 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Clauses 19, 21 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Part 11 Cases Cited: Allstate Life Insurance Co & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 33) (1996) 64 FCR 79; 137 ALR 138 BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz [2004] HCA 61; 221 CLR 400 Brown v Heathcote County Council [1986] 1 NZLR 76 Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258; 75 NSWLR 649 Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605; 1 ACSR 636 DAO v R [2011] NSWCCA 63; 278 ALR 765 Di Sora v Phillipps (1863) 10 HL Cas 624; 11 ER 1168 Eades v Gunestepe [2012] NSWCA 204 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd & Ors [2002] All ER (D) 139; [2003] 1 AC 32 Goliath Portland Cement Co Ltd v Bengtell & Anor [1994] 33 NSWLR 414 Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; 139 CLR 161 Henry v Henry [1996] HCA 51; 185 CLR 571 House v R [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 James Hardie & Anor v Hall as Administrator of the Estate of Putt (1998) 43 NSWLR 554 Kars v Kars [1996] HCA 37; 187 CLR 354 Konamaneni & Ors v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269 at 1299; [2001] EWHC Ch 470 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; 162 CLR 24 at 41 Murakami v Wiryadi & Ors [2010] NSWCA 7; 268 ACR 377 National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v The Sentry Corp (1989) 22 FCR 209; 87 ALR 539 at 556 Northern Territory v Mengel [1995] HCA 65; 185 CLR 307 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay [1988] HCA 32; 165 CLR 197 Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Khoshaba [2006] NSWCA 41 Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2012] HCA 36 Pilgrim Shipping Co Ltd v The State Trading Corp of India Ltd [1975] 1 Lloyd's Rep 356 Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (The Nema) [1982] AC 724 Puttick v Tenon Limited (formerly called Fletcher Challenge Forests Limited) [2008] HCA 54; 238 CLR 265 Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang [2002] HCA 10; 210 CLR 491 Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40; 181 CLR 201 Stavar v Caltex Refineries (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWDDT 22 Studorp Ltd v Lance John Robinson [2012] NSWSC 148 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55; 171 CLR 538 Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; 142 CLR 531 Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd [1971] 2 QB 23; [1972] AC 741 Yorkshire Insurance Co v Campbell [1916] HCA 75; 22 CLR 315 Texts Cited: Aronson, Dyer and Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th ed (2009) Law Book Co "Foreign Law in English Courts" (1998) 109 LQR 142 Bell, M Davies A.S Brereton P L G "Nygh's Conflict of Laws in Australia" 8th ed Lexis Nexis (2010) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Studorp Ltd - Applicant/Cross Respondent Lance John Robinson - Respondent/Cross Applicant Representation: Counsel: Mr GM Watson SC/Mr J Sheller - Applicant/Cross Respondent Mr PCB Semmler QC/Mr T Zougavitas - Respondent/Cross Applicant Solicitors: DLA Piper Australia - Applicant/Cross Respondent Turner Freeman Lawyers - Respondent/Cross Applicant File Number(s): 2011/372072 Decision under appeal Citation: [2012] NSWSC 148 Date of Decision: 2012-03-01 00:00:00 Before: Adamson J File Number(s): 2011/372072