On an application for transfer under s 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act, the court need only be satisfied that there is a perceptible difference in favour of one supreme court over another. The preponderance of witnesses and the relative cost and inconvenience of the litigation are significant factors. A non-exclusive jurisdiction clause is indicative but not determinative. The test of forum non conveniens has no application as a proposition of law.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.