The unique procedural powers of the Dust Diseases Tribunal under ss 25(3), 25A and 25B of the DDT Act are relevant and significant factors in determining the 'more appropriate forum' under the Cross-vesting Act, and are not mere forensic advantages to one party. These provisions apply to Queensland torts litigated in the Tribunal notwithstanding the John Pfeiffer choice of law rule, because the common law choice of law rule yields to valid forum legislation. The cross-vesting scheme applies the 'more appropriate forum' test, not the 'clearly inappropriate' forum non conveniens test. The Supreme Court, not the Tribunal, has jurisdiction to remove and transfer proceedings under the Cross-vesting Act.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 105 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 105 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.