Joy Susan McEntee v Daniel Ignatius Connor

(1994) 4 Tas R 18; [1994] TASSC 47

Supreme Court of Tasmania

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Private International Law
2. › Stay of proceedings
3. › Forum non conveniens
4. › Clearly inappropriate forum test
5. › Tortious act committed overseas
6. › Whether defendant discharged onus of showing continuation of proceedings would be oppressive and vexatious
7. › Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), s 15(1)
1. Private International Law
2. › Cross-vesting
3. › Transfer of proceedings between Supreme Courts
4. › Interests of justice
5. › Whether common law stay principles ousted by cross-vesting legislation for causes of action arising in Australia
6. › Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Tas), s 5(2)(iii)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Service
3. › Interstate service of process
4. › Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), ss 15(1), 16
5. › No requirement for connection between cause of action and forum State

Quick Take

For causes of action arising wholly within Australia, the cross-vesting legislation has in a practical sense ousted the common law principles governing stay of proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds. The choice of forum between Australian Supreme Courts is governed by the statutory discretion under the cross-vesting legislation (whether transfer is in the interests of justice), not by the Voth 'clearly inappropriate forum' test. The common law stay principles remain applicable only where a non-Australian forum is the proposed alternative.