Seebrad Welding Pty Ltd v Pentair Flow Control Pacific Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1649

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Seebrad Welding Pty Ltd v Pentair Flow Control Pacific Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1649 Hearing dates: 19 November 2014 Decision date: 21 November 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: (1) Proceedings matter number 2014/199925 be transferred from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to section 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW). (2) The Costs of the motion are costs in the cause. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - proceedings - notice of motion - order seeking transfer of proceedings from Supreme Court of New South Wales to Supreme Court of Victoria - consent orders made Legislation Cited: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Seebrad Welding Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Pentair Flow Control Pacific Pty Limited (First Defendant) Timbercorp Limited (Second Defendant) Select Harvests Limited (Third Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: Ms O Stojanovska Gillis Delaney Lawyers (Plaintiff) Ms K Balendra, as amicus File Number(s): 2014/199925 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1By notice of motion filed on 7 November 2014 by the plaintiff, orders were sought, by consent, transferring these proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria under s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW). I made those orders that day for the following reasons. 2The motion was supported by an affidavit sworn by Ms Amanda Bond, the plaintiff's solicitor, on 6 November 2014. She deposed that in October 2009, Mr Flint, a worker, had brought a claim for damages for personal injury suffered during the course of his employment by the plaintiff at Boundary Bend in Victoria, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Claims are also advanced against the other two defendants as occupiers of the premises at which the injury was suffered. The plaintiffs and one defendant are located in Victoria and the others in New South Wales. 3Mr Flint sought and was paid compensation in accordance with the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW). 4These proceedings related to a recovery action brought by the plaintiff under s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act against the defendants, as occupiers and insurers. 5It was common ground between the parties that in those circumstances, the interests of justice required that these proceedings be heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. 6I was satisfied by this evidence that the orders sought should be made. It is clear that these proceedings arise out of and are related to the proceeding Mr Flint brought against the plaintiff, which are still pending in the Supreme Court of Victoria; and that it is more appropriate that they be determined by that Court, together with the proceedings Mr Flynn has brought. 7In the result, it had to be concluded that justice demanded that the orders to which all of the parties had consented, be made.